Subject: Re: proposed new KNF [was Re: Time to update KNF?]
To: Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
Date: 01/18/2000 09:39:08
Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.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,
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.
Chris Demetriou - email@example.com - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.