I've added your patch and also clarified the use-case for RESERVED (which is still different from your proposed 'NONE'). Anyway, for further discussions on this, please use the libextractor list...
-Christian On 2/8/22 7:21 PM, madmurphy wrote: > Actually, the first thing that I thought when I read > |EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED| was “not used today, but tomorrow will be > used for the book's cover” :) > > It definitely needs a renaming! > > --madmurphy > > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:52 PM madmurphy <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Of course, the value of |EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED| would be even > better (zero would be the natural value for something like this). > > But then it's a lexical problem. If I see something marked as > “reserved” I read “do not ever try to use this label”. > > Since already libextractor uses |EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED| with > the meaning of |EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_NONE|, would it not make sense to > rename |EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED| to |EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_NONE| > and tell the user that there is nothing “reserved” about it? > > By instinct if I see a label named |EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED| I > might think that there are cases in which libextractor marks a > metatype with |EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED|, expecting me to treat > is as an opaque label. Instead, |EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_NONE| to be > usable requires libextractor never to mark anything publicly with it > (or throw it as a return value). Since apparently this is the case, > a comment similar to the one I had left in the patch would also be > useful (“used by libextractor only internally; available to the user > for marking an |enum EXTRACTOR_MetaType| as not carrying any > meaningful value”). > > --madmurphy >
