Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> christos@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
>   
>> In article <20060415063916.9009B23402@thoreau.thistledown.com.au>,
>> Simon Burge  <simonb@wasabisystems.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Brett Lymn wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Module Name:	src
>>>> Committed By:	blymn
>>>> Date:		Fri Apr 14 13:09:07 UTC 2006
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> 	src/sys/sys: iostat.h
>>>>         
>>> The new "struct io_stats" has members like:
>>>
>>>        char            *name;  /* device name */
>>>        void            *parent; /* pointer to what we are attached to */
>>>        int             type;   /* type of device the state belong to */
>>>        int             busy;   /* busy counter */
>>>
>>> Should these names have io_ prefixes?  The current names are a bit
>>> "generic", and could cause issues in code that includes <sys/iostat.h>.
>>>
>>>       
>> They should. Let's do it.
>>     
>
> Er, we live in an age of modern compilers -- the namespace inside
> structs is struct specific. Why do struct members need prefixes like
> io_?
>
> Perry
>   

Conflict can occur with macros, which don't observe the other namespace
rules.  It may be a good idea still to avoid generic names, particularly
in code that is going to be #include'd into userland programs.

-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191