On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Peter TB Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's usual (as far as I know) in GLib-based software to use the GLib basic > types, as far as I can tell. I've used them almost exclusively in the gEDA > code I've written, anyway. *shrug*
Regardless of current practice, I dislike the wholesale s/TYPENAME/gTYPENAME/ replacement. I just don't understand the supposed benefits, while I do understand the costs: you now have many more keyword-like tokens in your source code that don't get syntax-highlighted. You now *have to* #include most or all of glib just to compile your program. Bubble gum wrapper message: "Did you know? The compiler has to chow through more than a megabyte of input for each gEDA source file it compiles." I have more sympathy for G_MAXINT and friends, as I can more easily imagine <limits.h> being missing or broken on some systems (any specific examples?) on which we want gaf to be able to build. It's not like there's a difference between "int" and "gint" - unless GLib starts doing "typedef int gint __attribute__((mode (TI)));" _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
