On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 11:12 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > I'm all for removing the type redundancy, but I'd rather see the > typedef stay and remove the struct name instead. It reduces typing > when specifying the type and gets rid of the unnecessary separation of > struct type names from other types.
You are suggesting that we make all struct types anonymous, relying exclusively on typedefs? As far as I can tell, this simply would not work, because it would force headers to include the definition of those struct types in order to use them in any capacity. One could no longer do: struct foo; typedef struct foo foo_t; In other words, one could no longer create forward references at all, because there would be nothing to name as the type. This plan seems like it would lead us back to circular header dependencies. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
