svn commit: r312296 - in head: lib/libc/sys sys/kern sys/netinet sys/netinet6 sys/sys tools/regression/sockets/udp_pingpong tools/regression/sockets/unix_cmsg

[Ian Lepore]

I actually don't agree that it's all good, but I also don't have the
time to prove it's not (or prove myself wrong, which could certainly be
the case).

-- Ian

On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 15:21 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> Ian's potential objection has been met by Ben Kaduk and Eric van
> Gyzen's responses.  It seems like an enum is just fine.  And I agree
> with Gleb that it is preferable.
> 
> Conrad
> 
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax at freebsd.org>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Well as other pointed out there are some concerns with using enums
> > from C++
> > and ABI prospective. So it looks to me that there is no general
> > consensus on
> > that direction.
> > 
> > -Max
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius at freebsd.org
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:40:50AM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > M> That being said, is there any other socket option value in
> > > there
> > > M> implemented as enum? I don't see anything obvious, so that I
> > > am curious
> > > if
> > > M> it would stick out as an odd one in there. What do you think?
> > > 
> > > Simply because 30 years ago the language didn't allow that, and
> > > later
> > > additions mimiced the older sockopts. We need to break this loop
> > > :)
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Totus tuus, Glebius.
> > >