The memory::access_permissions_t structure can be much simpler. Users should not need to use it directly themselves, just pass it to functions of this library. So, let's just make it a:
with some named constructor idioms... not as static methods. We could also probably get rid of the enum : bool type, add an access sub-namespace, and have memory::permissions::read_only(), memory::permissions::write_only(), memory::permissions::read_and_write() and memory::permissions::none().
(and maybe even shorten access_permissions() to permissions()?)
The
memory::access_permissions_t
structure can be much simpler. Users should not need to use it directly themselves, just pass it to functions of this library. So, let's just make it a:with some named constructor idioms... not as static methods. We could also probably get rid of the enum : bool type, add an
access
sub-namespace, and havememory::permissions::read_only()
,memory::permissions::write_only()
,memory::permissions::read_and_write()
andmemory::permissions::none()
.(and maybe even shorten
access_permissions()
topermissions()
?)