-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Simply access-permissions-related code #639
Labels
Comments
eyalroz
changed the title
Simply the access_permissions_t structure
Simply access-permissions-related code
Apr 23, 2024
eyalroz
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 23, 2024
* Renamed: `access_permissions` -> `permissions` and `access_permissions_t` to `permissions_t`, everwhere * Dropped the boolean enum in favor of parameter-less some named constructor idioms * Dropped the static methods in favor of named constructor idioms * No user code needs to worry about pairs-of-booleans; but they can aggregate-initialize if they really want to
eyalroz
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 23, 2024
* Renamed: `access_permissions` -> `permissions` and `access_permissions_t` to `permissions_t`, everwhere * Dropped the boolean enum in favor of parameter-less some named constructor idioms * Dropped the static methods in favor of named constructor idioms * No user code needs to worry about pairs-of-booleans; but they can aggregate-initialize if they really want to
eyalroz
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 24, 2024
* Renamed: `access_permissions` -> `permissions` and `access_permissions_t` to `permissions_t`, everwhere * Dropped the boolean enum in favor of parameter-less some named constructor idioms * Dropped the static methods in favor of named constructor idioms * No user code needs to worry about pairs-of-booleans; but they can aggregate-initialize if they really want to
eyalroz
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 29, 2024
* Renamed: `access_permissions` -> `permissions` and `access_permissions_t` to `permissions_t`, everwhere * Dropped the boolean enum in favor of parameter-less some named constructor idioms * Dropped the static methods in favor of named constructor idioms * No user code needs to worry about pairs-of-booleans; but they can aggregate-initialize if they really want to
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The
memory::access_permissions_t
structure can be much simpler. Users should not need to use it directly themselves, just pass it to functions of this library. So, let's just make it a:with some named constructor idioms... not as static methods. We could also probably get rid of the enum : bool type, add an
access
sub-namespace, and havememory::permissions::read_only()
,memory::permissions::write_only()
,memory::permissions::read_and_write()
andmemory::permissions::none()
.(and maybe even shorten
access_permissions()
topermissions()
?)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: