[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: feature request
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: feature request |
Date: |
Tue, 29 May 2001 02:02:25 +0200 (MEST) |
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 07:09:40PM +0200, Lars J. Aas wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 12:17:07AM +0200, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> > : Hello everybody,
> > :
> > : in CVS guile, SCM is now defined as:
> > : typedef struct scm_unused_struct * SCM;
> > : Hmmm. I just realize that it should probably rather be
> > : typedef struct scm_unused_struct_t * SCM;
> >
> > Isn't the _t suffix usually attached to the type you typedef? I mean,
> > I've seen a lot of "typedef struct somestruct_s * somestruct_t", and I've
> > used that idiom a lot myself too.
>
> I guess I'll repeat this here: some type names are reserved by POSIX,
> including those that end in `_t'. I'd quote from POSIX 1003.1-1996,
> but I'm not at home at the moment to put my hands on it. If you have
> the draft POSIX 1003.1-200x, see XSH sec 2.2 Name Space, line 638.
>
> I don't necessarily advocate sweeping the tree and removing the `_t'
> type names, but I don't think we should be adding new ones.
Sorry for being insistent, but...
... could you please verify and show us the corresponding passage? I
really want to be sure about this one, because it seems to be quite a big
demand to request all names ending with '_t', especially since it seems to
be a widely used pattern to name types that way. Reserving names within
some prefix range makes sense to me, but reserving names with a common
postfix is strange. The prefix is typically used to identify the package
a definition comes from, and requesting some postfix _across all packages_
is something that I somehow can not really believe without seeing the
corresponding passages myself, sorry.
Personally, I like the usage of _t for types, and I would be sorry if all
the recent efforts to unify this usage in guile would be made useless by
some, well, I take the freedom to call it stupid, name reservation
policy. Sweeping the tree and _adding_ the _t postfix is exactly what has
just been done, and IMO would be the right thing.
Assuming you are right, (why don't these folks reserve some prefix posix_
and stay with it ?) is there a recommendation how to name user types then?
Can we use SCM_BOOL_T, or is that also a problem? ("Oh ... it makes me
mad ... mad!" -- "Easy, Mungo, easy ..." :-)
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann
- feature request, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2001/05/20
- Re: feature request, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/24
- Re: feature request, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/27
- Re: feature request, Rob Browning, 2001/05/28
- Re: feature request, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/28
- Re: feature request, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/05/28
- Re: feature request,
Dirk Herrmann <=
- Re: feature request, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/05/28
- Re: feature request, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/29
- Re: feature request, Michael Livshin, 2001/05/29
- Re: feature request, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/05/29
- Re: feature request, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/05/29
- Re: feature request, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/29
- Re: feature request, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/30
- Re: feature request, Rob Browning, 2001/05/30
- Re: feature request, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/31
- Re: feature request, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/31