Subject: Re: Curious SYNOPSIS in signal(3)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Martin Weber <Ephaeton@gmx.net>
Date: 06/26/2002 11:18:22
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:45:39AM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2002, Eric Jacoboni wrote:
> # >>>>> "Greywolf" == Greywolf <email@example.com> writes:
> # Greywolf> # it could be nice to add it in the synopsis as an
> # Greywolf> alternative for the # basic syntax.
> # Greywolf> How is typedef'ing it clearer than inlining it?
> # Trust me: for some people, it is. I teach system programmation and i
> # see every year that students prefer this notation.
> Show me a student that wants to have the information hidden, and I'll
> ask you if you want fries with that.
The information is not hidden, it is there. In the typedef. So you should
say "Show me a student that wants to have an easily readable form of the
function" and the picture changes. *I* personally don't care as I find lisp
much easier to read :p No seriously, the information is not hidden, and
using typedefs leaves your own functions which accept or return function-
pointers much clearer _imo_.