Paul Eggert wrote: > > +# define _GL_ATTRIBUTE_PURE __attribute__ ((__pure__)) > > The names _GL_ATTRIBUTE_PURE and _GL_ATTRIBUTE_CONST seem > gratingly long to me; when reading a function signature they > get in the way of other important information. > ... > renaming them to _GL_PURE and _GL_CONST? When used in context > the shorter names shouldn't be confusing.
I disagree. Especially _GL_CONST would be very confusing to everyone who knows that glibc headers use __const for 'const', that gnulib defines _Restrict_ for 'restrict' - people would think that _GL_CONST expands to 'const'. > Also, these two names use a different naming convention from _GL_UNUSED. _GL_UNUSED is a shorter name because it needs to be placed inside an argument list. Whereas in Jim's patch all occurrences of _GL_ATTRIBUTE_PURE and _GL_ATTRIBUTE_CONST are in lines that have enough room. It would be possible to make the names a little bit shorter by calling them _GL_CONST_FUNCTION and _GL_PURE_FUNCTION. But even that would be inconsistent with _GL_ATTRIBUTE_FORMAT that we use in stdio.in.h. In summary, I'm very much in favour of keeping _GL_ATTRIBUTE_PURE and _GL_ATTRIBUTE_CONST. It's unambiguous, easy to understand, and consistent with _GL_ATTRIBUTE_FORMAT. Bruno -- In memoriam Itzhak Katzenelson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Katzenelson>
