Il 24/09/2012 20:14, Michael Roth ha scritto: >>> > > I went with qUppercase because it avoids all the previous issues with >>> > > using leading underscores, and it's reserved in terms of QEMU coding >>> > > guidelines as far as I can tell (we generally require leading capital >>> > > for typedefs and lowercase for variable names, and can work around >>> > > exceptions on a case by case basis by using QIDL() or some other name). >>> > > I also had it as q_* for a bit but that didn't seem much better on the >>> > > eyes we looking at converted structures. >> > >> > It looks like Hungarian notation and very much unlike other QEMU code. >> > I'd use q_ or qidl_ prefix instead, or rather QIDL(). >> > > I wanted some way to distinguish from other qemu code to avoid conflicts, > but i think q_* seems reasonable if we reserve the prefix via CODING_STYLE. > Then for conflicts outside our control we can either use a different name > for the annotations or use the long-form QIDL() style depending on the > circumstances.
I'm not sure why we need two ways to say the same thing... I know it's just bikeshedding to some extent, but I'd really like to standardize on a single form. Paolo
