> From: Wolfgang M�es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:40:04 +0100
> > p* can be removed (I don't like it either), but why the _t? It's a clear > > marking that this is a defined type and it makes the code a tiny bit more > > readable. And usb.h is not the only one using that style... > > I like the style with "_t" very much. In fact, plain old C does the same, > think of size_t and timer_t. IMO, it is a good habbit. Exactly - the historic usage was to mix structures and integral types with _t, which is clearly wrong in the context of C. The annoying part is that you never can tell if _t is a silly integer typedef, made for poorly understood portability, or someone who cannot use #define for sizeof'ed structs, or perhaps a misguided idea of a "handle" or "cookie" by the help of typedefed pointer. Every time you see a _t, a lookup must be made, and perhaps several times. The absolutely worst happens when someone attempts to re-type a _t over a large body of existing code, for instance inexpirienced coders keep proposing to change kdev_t into a pointer. -- Pete _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
