Message288493
| Author |
vinay.sajip |
| Recipients |
Ilya.Kulakov, alexei.romanov, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, eryksun, meador.inge, vinay.sajip, weeble |
| Date |
2017年02月23日.22:46:07 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1487889967.98.0.669175213484.issue22273@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> Perhaps it should instead use two specific flags, TYPEFLAG_HASBITFIELD and TYPEFLAG_HASUNION
This seems better at first sight. It's not making any suitability decisions (apart from doing the unrolling), and the meaning of these flags will be less volatile than TYPEFLAG_NONARGTYPE because that assessment depends on current limitations, and those limitations might change over time.
I'm going into a period of two weeks where I may not have much time to work on this due to other time commitments, so if you want to press on with it, go right ahead :-) |
|