Not sure which is the official source, but here's one: http://www.gnu.org/s/hello/manual/libc/Reserved-Names.html
Extract: > Some additional classes of identifier names are reserved for future > extensions to the C language or the POSIX.1 environment. While > using these names for your own purposes right now might not cause > a problem, they do raise the possibility of conflict with future versions > of the C or POSIX standards, so you should avoid these names. > [..] > Names that end with ‘_t’ are reserved for additional type names. On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >> > >
