Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-4721-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org
Received: (qmail 45934 invoked by uid 500); 23 Oct 2001 17:55:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:dev@apr.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@apr.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@apr.apache.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dev-subscribe@apr.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org
Received: (qmail 45895 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2001 17:55:07 -0000
Message-ID: <3BD5AEB8.3010900@xbc.nu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:54:00 +0200
From: Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <brane@xbc.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011011
X-Accept-Language: sl, en-gb, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeff Trawick <trawick@attglobal.net>
CC: dev@httpd.apache.org, rbb@covalent.net, dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] apr_proc_wait
References: <20011022182426.A8A6246DFC@koj.rkbloom.net>
 <m3d73es3lt.fsf@rdu88-250-106.nc.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Jeff Trawick wrote:

>Ryan Bloom <rbb@covalent.net> writes:
>
>>This patch implements my idea for a new API to apr_proc_wait and 
>>apr_proc_all_wait.
>>
>
><nitpick>
>I'm a wee bit nervous that we use an enumerated type for a bitmask.
>Using an enumeration for the values of the bits seems fine but maybe
>using some unsigned int value is best?  We'd expect an enumerated type
>to hold only the values in the enumeration, not some OR of some of
>them.
></nitpick>
>

Not so. ISO C explicitly allows this use of enums (and so does ISO C++)..

-- 
Brane �ibej   <brane@xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/