On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 05:16 +0200, Michael Bruck wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > On Sunday 31 May 2009, Michael Bruck wrote: > >> The 'struct foo_s' syntax is code bloat that obscures the actual > >> algorithms. 'foo_t' is shorter. > > > > Disagree about obscuring. And "shorter" doesn't matter here. > > > > If I see "foo_t" I have no idea what kind of thing it is. > > If I see a "struct foo" there's no such confusion. > > > > Ergo, "foo_t" has obscured. > > Yes, I read that argument on this list before. By this logic most C++ > code in existence is doomed.
Doomed to a different style of code, yes. That's not subjective, it is a simple fact that derives from the very essence of each language. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
