Eric Blake writes:
> On 02/17/2016 05:05 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Let's check for completeness. Calls of c_enum_const():
>>
>> * QAPISchemaEnumType.c_null() and (with your patch) gen_visit_union()
>> call it like
>>
>> c_enum_const(TYPE.name, MEMBER, TYPE.prefix)
>>
>> where ME
On 02/17/2016 05:05 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Let's check for completeness. Calls of c_enum_const():
>
> * QAPISchemaEnumType.c_null() and (with your patch) gen_visit_union()
> call it like
>
> c_enum_const(TYPE.name, MEMBER, TYPE.prefix)
>
> where MEMBER is a member of enumeration
On 02/17/2016 05:05 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> When we added support for a user-specified prefix for an enum
>> type (commit 351d36e), we forgot to teach the qapi-visit code
>> to honor that prefix in the case of using a prefixed enum as
>> the discriminator for a flat
Eric Blake writes:
> When we added support for a user-specified prefix for an enum
> type (commit 351d36e), we forgot to teach the qapi-visit code
> to honor that prefix in the case of using a prefixed enum as
> the discriminator for a flat union. While there is still some
> on-list debate on wh
When we added support for a user-specified prefix for an enum
type (commit 351d36e), we forgot to teach the qapi-visit code
to honor that prefix in the case of using a prefixed enum as
the discriminator for a flat union. While there is still some
on-list debate on whether we want to keep prefixes,
