The problem, as I understand it, is that you end up with two names for the same underlying type, but you can't convert between them without a cast.
Which sort of defeats the reason for these "shortcut names". --Josh At 22:47 on 02/23/2002 EST, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:43 PM -0500 2/23/02, Josh Wilmes wrote: > >So indent needs to be told about non-standard type (typedefs) to work best. > >The problem is that some of the parrot code does this: > > > >#define CHARTYPE struct parrot_chartype_t > >#define ENCODING struct parrot_encoding_t > >#define STRING struct parrot_string_t > >#define Parrot_CharType struct parrot_chartype_t * > >#define Parrot_Encoding struct parrot_encoding_t * > >#define Parrot_String struct parrot_string_t * > > > >I think the first three are intended to give shorter names for use inside > >the core. I'm not sure about the seocnd three, but I think they can > >probably be converted to typedefs safely enough. > > > >So, what should be done about the first three? If it's cool to have > >shortcut names for types like that, may I propose that we make a header file > >which is for use in-core only and does all those aliases in one place. Then > >I can parse that for indent's purposes. > > We should make the first three typedefs. (Well, OK, we should make > them all typedefs) I thought they were already, which'd explain some > of the interesting error messages I get at times. > -- > Dan > > --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- > Dan Sugalski even samurai > [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even > teddy bears get drunk
