On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Jonathan Leffler wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
>
> >[...] I'd like to propose a convention [...] By example:
> >
> >struct somename_t { ... };
> >typedef struct somename_t { ... }* Somename;
> >
> >The non-typedef'd name of a struct type ends in _t.
>
> Is
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 11:45:03AM -0800, Jonathan Leffler wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
>
> >[...] I'd like to propose a convention [...] By example:
> >
> >struct somename_t { ... };
> >typedef struct somename_t { ... }* Somename;
> >
> >The non-typedef'd name of a struct ty
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
>[...] I'd like to propose a convention [...] By example:
>
>struct somename_t { ... };
>typedef struct somename_t { ... }* Somename;
>
>The non-typedef'd name of a struct type ends in _t.
Is this a good idea? The _t suffix is reserved by POSIX for use b
At 11:34 PM 1/10/2002 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <20020110201559$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Melvin Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Well sizeof(Foo) and sizeof(*foo) are not actually the same thing
>at all there because Foo is presumably a typedef for a pointer type
>so sizeof(F
In message <20020110201559$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Melvin Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Foo foo = (Foo) malloc(sizeof(*foo));
> >? Does ANSI allow using sizeof on a variable declared on the
> > same line?
>
> Wouldn't sizeof(Foo) be safer here? At the logical time of the
> call *f
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:18:33PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Eep, to answer the original subject of your mail, I think its a good idea
> to start with the _t typedef standard.
except that POSIX (IIRC, but it's either them or ANSI) reserves all names
ending in _t for themselves. So any other na
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 02:31:24PM -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
>
> > The naming of things is getting a bit messy. I'd like to propose a
> > convention that I use in my work. It's compatible with the last draft
> > of PDD 7 that I could find:
> > http://ww
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 02:31:24PM -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> After looking through PDD 7, I wonder: were we planning on doing any of
> this stuff? If so, maybe we should step back for a moment and do it. :-)
> If developers are expected to follow these guidelines (not that I've done
> any de
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
> The naming of things is getting a bit messy. I'd like to propose a
> convention that I use in my work. It's compatible with the last draft
> of PDD 7 that I could find:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-internals%40perl.org/msg03422.html
I agree, we sho
Eep, to answer the original subject of your mail, I think its a good idea
to start with the _t typedef standard.
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovation Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 770-835-6984
> Foo foo = (Foo) malloc(sizeof(*foo));
>? Does ANSI allow using sizeof on a variable declared on the
> same line?
Wouldn't sizeof(Foo) be safer here? At the logical time of the
call *foo points to undefined. Technically its not a deref but
still looks scary. In C++ it might be confusing if you
The naming of things is getting a bit messy. I'd like to propose a
convention that I use in my work. It's compatible with the last draft
of PDD 7 that I could find:
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-internals%40perl.org/msg03422.html
By example:
struct somename_t { ... };
typedef struct somename
12 matches
Mail list logo
