Re: [Proposal]TX flags

On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 03:24 +0200, Gábor Stefanik wrote:

> > I see the point that Michael is making.  What do you think?  Shall
> > we treat it as a 2-bit wide unsigned integer field in the Tx flags,
> > instead?
> >
> 
> IMO that is a good idea, if we accept having non-booleans in a flags
> field. In that case, this proposal comes to my mind:
> -Define the second and third bits (mask 0x0006) as a quad-state flag
> indicating the use of RTS/CTS. So, we can have these values for the
> flag (accessible as (TXFlags & 0x0006) >> 1):
> 0: neither
> 1: rts
> 2: cts
> 3: auto-select (only makes sense when sending & during feature discovery)