31 Jan
2015
31 Jan
'15
11:22 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Frank fau@riseup.net wrote:
We could add a new construct like this for c-enums holding bitfields?
(define-grovel-syntax bitfieldenum (name-and-opts &rest masks)
[...]
Sounds good, but perhaps we can refactor things such that we have only CENUM and BITFIELD -- ditching CONSTANTENUM and BITFIELDENUM -- and whether they expect constants or enums becomes a parameter. Makes sense?
--
Luís Oliveira
http://kerno.org/~luis/