On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 20:19 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Zach Welch wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > Actually, I was suggesting using the typedef to be an opaque handle. > The comments you grabbed were a precursor of sorts and as you > correctly point out, do not allow forward declaration at all. > Instead, I meant something like: > > struct foo; > typedef struct foo * foo_t; > > Then, the API would use foo_t's as arguments. The fact that is a > pointer to a struct is an implementation detail. To the user of the > API, it's a foo regardless of how it is implemented.
Thank goodness! We have almost arrived on the same page; I am with you on these dieas, except I would suggest '_p' for such types. :) I have some other clean up in mind that should be done before we try to tackle this stuff, but I will revise my C style guide patch with the ideas in this thread and repost them soon. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
