On 09/21/2012 11:26 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:42:34 -0300
> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> wrote:
> 

>>>> +{ 'union': 'KeyValue',
>>>> +  'data': {
>>>> +    'hex': 'int',
     +    'qcode': 'QKeyCode',
>>>
>>> Don't you find it a bit odd to name this 'hex', even though it works to
>>> do 'hex':32 as a synonym for 'hex':0x20?  Should we instead name it
>>> 'value', since we don't care in what base the value was represented,
>>> only that JSON was able to decode the base into a value?
>>
>> Yes, that's a good point. I'll respin.
> 
> Actually, this also has drawbacks:
> 
>             keylist->value->kind = KEY_VALUE_KIND_VALUE;
>             keylist->value->value = value;

> Any better ideas?

Maybe s/hex/number/, as in:

JSON: 'number':0x20

C code: keylist->value->number = number;

that is, you are passing the value either as a keycode name, or as a number.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake@redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org