Ted Lemon <mellon@isc.org> writes:
> This is a good point, too - I missed that.   I think _t has always
> been the way BSD has done it, hasn't it?   I mean, FILE is a K&R
> thing, not a BSD thing.

However, has has previously been noted, _t is in the implementation
namespace for at least one standard.

For kernel code, using _t might be OK.  For user-land code, it's not,
really.

My personal preference is to not _ever_ typedef something that's not a
basic type, i.e. if it's a struct or a union, talk about it that way,
so that you've got a bit more of a clue what it is.  however, that's
not based on much, and i recognize that that can serious bite when
you're trying to create an API so i don't stick to it religiously.
8-)


cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.