Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 05/17/2018 03:05 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>>>>>> QAPI language design alternatives: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Having unions cover all discriminator values explicitly is useful. >>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Having unions repeat all the discriminator values explicitly is not >>>>>>>> useful. All we need is replacing the code enforcing that by code >>>>>>>> defaulting missing ones to the empty type. >>>>>>>> > >>> I think I'd vote for 2 (never enforce all-branches coverage) as well. >> >> Eric, what do you think? > > I'm sold. Let's go ahead and make the change that for any flat union, > a branch not listed defaults to the empty type (no added fields) > rather than being an error, then simplify a couple of the existing > flat unions that benefit from that.
Anton, would you like to give this a try? [...]
