:P
2015-03-13 23:59 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Papastamos :
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:44:04PM -0400, Charlie Murphy wrote:
>> Evan Gates wrote:
>> > typedef the new history and recurse structs as per style guide
>> > -emg
>>
>> Ahh, it's less verbose. Typedef'd structs have never sent me on a
>> heade
I can sympathise with both sides of the argument, but I'm not
convinced code readability and maintainability will be negatively
affected.
As far as I can see, it comes down to personal taste, which I
understand is often the spark of debate at suckless.
--
Four word witty remark
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:44:04PM -0400, Charlie Murphy wrote:
> Evan Gates wrote:
> > typedef the new history and recurse structs as per style guide
> > -emg
>
> Ahh, it's less verbose. Typedef'd structs have never sent me on a
> header-hunt, so sticking with the style guide seems like the righ
Evan Gates wrote:
> typedef the new history and recurse structs as per style guide
> -emg
Ahh, it's less verbose. Typedef'd structs have never sent me on a
header-hunt, so sticking with the style guide seems like the right
thing to do.
Charlie Murphy
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:57:24 -0700
Evan Gates wrote:
> typedef the new history and recurse structs as per style guide
The styleguide applies, but if a project has a different style,
then the project's style applies.
I hate typedef'd structs, because you have to go 2 steps to
actually see what th
typedef the new history and recurse structs as per style guide
-emg
From 192bd627e01de5f66a1cd76ad733b55f21bfde52 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Evan Gates
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:55:23 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] typedef History and Recursor as per style guide
---
chgrp.c | 4 ++--
chmo
