[Xcb] Should we use <bit> instead of <value>?

[Jamey Sharp]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/11/07, Peter Harris <peter.harris at hummingbird.com> wrote:
> Ian Osgood wrote:
> > The patch looks mostly good to me, as long as you are set up to test
> > the extensions afterwards.
>
> I didn't test the extensions, but I did read the generated .h files to
> make sure they were equivalent (and the names didn't change).

I'm too lazy to test them myself too, so I wish you had. ;-) But the
changes look correct, so I've pushed them. Thanks!

> > (Naming: I prefer not to include "Mask" in enumeration names,
> > because it comes out duplicated, for example
> > "XCB_EV_MASK_NO_EVENT_MASK". Don't worry about compatibility; no one
> > is using these extensions yet.)
>
> I agree, but that's a different patch.

True enough. :-)

Jamey
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHZMvBp1aplQ4I9mURAqpJAKCHXw+2KHUwigdw876OCi9iEbPjagCfWjAG
ZWbbHitOThWLHTfcbj+fSEo=
=6iLr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----