On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 23:17 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > On May 19, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Zach Welch wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 22:14 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > >> On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote: > >>> > >>> changed all 'struct target_s' to 'target_t' to keep things > >>> consistent. > >> > >> I'd rather do away with all typedefs myself, except maybe > >> for "int" variants. Ditto that "*_t" convention. > >> > >> Anyone feel strongly pro-typedef? > > > > I think typedefs have their place, but I agree they are BAD when > > used in > > header file declarations. > > > > It all depends. [snip]
Yes, thanks for providing a clearer explanation; however, I do not think that this thread fully resolves the topic. To do that, I think we need to expand the documentation to provide style rules for using typedefs in the OpenOCD code, as no rules cover this particular element at the moment (other than "emulate"). I cannot discern clear rules from the examples that I have read on this list or in the code, so I think there may need to be a brief discussion on the topic to resolve it fully. I will post a new thread shortly. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
