Re: [9front] Re: vncv(1): support for RFB 3.8

[hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>]

i agree srvversion == 38 is clearer. clearly he has spent effort
minimizing this to achieve maximal expressiveness with least
redundency.

On 9/23/20, Silas McCroskey <inkswinc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well beyond just the usual "avoid magic numbers" advice, with version
> numbers in particular enums let you use a format like VERS_3_8 or so
> to make the inherent separation more clear, especially to distinguish
> between something like 3.11.1 and 3.1.11.
>
> - sam-d
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 1:58 PM Iruatã Souza <iru.muzgo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Le mar. 22 sept. 2020 à 22:36, Silas McCroskey <inkswinc@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>>
>>> > +    if(strncmp(msg, "RFB 003.008\n", VerLen) == 0)
>>> > +        srvversion = 38;
>>> > +    else
>>> > +        srvversion = 33;
>>>
>>> > +            if (srvversion == 38)
>>>
>>> This kind of thing should almost certainly be using enums instead of
>>> magic numbers.
>>>
>>>  - sam-d
>>
>>
>> Usually I would promptly agree with that suggestion, but it got me
>> thinking. In our specific case, is srvversion == SrvVersion38 actually
>> clearer than srvversion == 38?
>>
>> In any case, I would happily change the patch if enums are preferred.
>