Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 27.04.2016 08:43, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:00:06PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> On 20.04.2016 04:33, David Gibson wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Property functions
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +QDTProperty *qdt_new_property(const gchar *name, gconstpointer val,
>>>>> gsize len)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + QDTProperty *prop = g_malloc0(sizeof(*prop) + len);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + prop->name = g_strdup(name);
>>>>> + prop->len = len;
>>>>> + memcpy(prop->val, val, len);
>>>>> + return prop;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static QDTProperty *getprop_(const QDTNode *node, const gchar *name)
>>>>
>>>> Underscore at the end looks somewhat strange ... can't you simply drop
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> Well.. the idea was that the _ versions are the "internal" ones,
>>> whereas external users will generally use the non-underscore version
>>
>> I've seen that convention used before. It's fine with me.
>
> Can't remember to have seen that convention before ... I know that some
> people use the underscore at the beginning to mark an internal function,
> but at the end?
> So if you really want to use the underscore, what about putting it at
> the beginning instead?
C99 7.1.3 Reserved identifiers:
-- All identifiers that begin with an underscore are
always reserved for use as identifiers with file scope
in both the ordinary and tag name spaces.
[...]
