On Thursday, July 7, 2011, Sebastian Nowicki <[email protected]> wrote: > This probably won't change considering it's ubiquitous and > insignificant, but since we're on the subject, the "_t" suffix is > reserved in ISO C (or is it POSIX?). Considering the "alpm_" prefix is > used it should be safe. If the suffix were to be removed might want to > get rid of the typedefs (i.e. use "struct alpm_pkg" not "alpm_pkg_t"). > > Not really suggesting it, just thought I'd mention it.
Can you find a source for this? I feel like most typedefs, whether in system code or user code, use the _t suffix in C code I've seen. > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 28/06/11 22:32, Allan McRae wrote: >>>> >>>> On 28/06/11 22:17, Dan McGee wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Allan McRae<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> After discussion here and on IRC, it was decided that rather than >>>>>> changing the one struct from alpm_foo_t to pmfoo_t for consistency, >>>>>> it would instead be better to rename all the other structs to follow >>>>>> the alpm_foo_t scheme. Given we are pushing towards 4.0, now is the >>>>>> best (only?) time to do this. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not going to send the enitre patchset here as that would just be >>>>>> overkill. Take a look at the patches in my repo: >>>>>> http://projects.archlinux.org/users/allan/pacman.git/log/?h=breakshit >>>>> >>>>> Two observations: >>>>> 1. Where is pmpkg_t? >>>> >>>> In with pmtrans_t for some reason... will fix! >>>> >>>>> 2. Does anyone else find "grp" kind of silly? pkg is ubiquitous and at >>>>> least less than 50% of the length of package, but I might propose >>>>> shifting the type name to "alpm_group_t". >>>> >>>> Seems reasonable to me. I can adjust this. >>>> >>> >>> Do we want function names with "grp" in them to be changed too? e.g. >>> alpm_option_add_ignoregrp, alpm_db_readgrp, alpm_db_get_grpcache, etc... >>> That can come in a separate patchset. >> >> Yeah, I forgot to bring that into the discussion- 100% agree with just >> a subsequent patch adjusting these names. Not sure if you want them to >> be like 'ignoregroup' or 'ignore_group', 'groupcache' or >> 'group_cache', etc. >> >> -Dan >> >> > >
