On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Auke Booij <a...@tulcod.com> wrote: > On 9 November 2015 at 18:17, Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Making the transform into a bitfield allows bitfield tests for useful facts: >> it can see if it is a mirror image by testing the flip bit, and check for >> transposition of the axes by checking the 90 degree bit. I believe this is >> the reason behind the desire to declare it a bitfield and I agree this is >> nice to have. >> >> I really do not see the problem with allowing it to be an int argument as >> long as the enum value 2^31 is not used. Though I am also stumped as to why >> you can't change the current misused ints into uint in the protocol. It will >> not change the bit layout in the messages and therefore is not a protocol >> change. > > I don't really know what to do with this final claim. I like the idea, > and it makes sense. Finally, it will solve this issue and potentially > future ones as well. Is there any chance it could be implemented or is > it a crazy idea?
Bill is absolutely right. And it also doesn't even really change the C API, because nobody is passing negetive numbers or number greater than 2^31-1 there anyway. Therefore, I am all for a change. :) _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
