On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 09:38 +0000, Mihir Nanavati wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Ian Campbell
>
> For future flexibility should we consider passing a flags
> argument and defining "XS_OPEN_READONLY 1<<0" instead of
> having an ro argument?
>
> Sure, we could do it, but I'm not too sure what other modes we could
> have for opening, let alone ones that might be used simultaneously in
> a bit field ;)
There's no downside to using a flag field now, even if no compelling use
cases come to mind right now and it might avoid an API change in the
future.
One vague thought I had was that I recently added a "nonreentrant" flag
to libxc for use in language bindings which like to control threading
themselves. Some sort of "no watches" flag might be useful in the future
for similar reasons.
> I don't suppose you feel like running sed over the tree to
> convert the
> in tree users, do you ;-)
>
>
> Could do, but I'd rather we get the interface finalized first ;)
Sure.
> Is there anything one specially needs to take into consideration when
> replacing them in the bindings?
I can't think of any -- try it and if it isn't obviously broken it's
probably fine ;-)
Ian.
