On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Jonathan Leffler wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
>
> >[...] I'd like to propose a convention [...] By example:
> >
> >struct somename_t { ... };
> >typedef struct somename_t { ... }* Somename;
> >
> >The non-typedef'd name of a struct type ends in _t.
>
> Is this a good idea? The _t suffix is reserved by POSIX for use by the
> implementation (POSIX 1003.1-1996, Section 2.7.2, table 2-2, p43: "any
> POSIX.1 header included - key 1 - reserved suffix '_t'", and key 1 is
> "Prefixes and suffixes of symbols that shall not be declared or #defined
> by the application").
We *could* put 't' beforehand: t_Foobar
I am working on another project in which we do that and it works out
nicely.
> Personally, I use: typedef struct Abcdef { ... } Abcdef; That is, the
> structure tag and the typedef name are the same.
Even better if you do this:
typedef struct Foo Foo;
struct Foo {
...
};
Then you can put 'Foo's inside of your struct and not have to put 'struct'
in front of them. :-)
> Is there any reason to keep structure tag names different from the
> typedef name? What is the benefit?
I don't think there is any. Every C compiler I've ever used lets you have
the names be the same.
> In practice, IMO, once the typedef is in place, the 'struct Tag'
> notation shouldn't be used thereafter; the only benefit to it is that
> you can write 'struct Tag *' where there is no previous declaration for
> 'struct Tag', which is at least nominally dubious coding practice -
> though it matches C++ forward declarations, so it is bearable.
I think if you need to use a struct before it is defined, then pre-declare
it, otherwise some compilers will give warnings.
- D
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
