> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:56 PM, Taylor R Campbell > <campbell+netbsd-tech-k...@mumble.net> wrote: > > I agree the keyword is ugly, and it's unfortunate that in order to > omit it we would have to use C++, but the ugliness gives us practical > benefits of better type-checking, reduced header file maintenance > burden, and reduced motivation for unnecessary header file > dependencies. No -- you just don't have to use "void *". Can you point to a practical problematic example? -- thorpej
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Jason Thorpe
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Valery Ushakov
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Mouse
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Johnny Billquist
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Mouse
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Johnny Billquist
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Johnny Billquist
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Mouse
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Jason Thorpe
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedefs Taylor R Campbell
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedef... Jason Thorpe
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct typedef... Robert Elz
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struct ty... Jason Thorpe
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struc... Mouse
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struc... Jason Thorpe
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struc... Mouse
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struc... Taylor R Campbell
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struc... Johnny Billquist
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struc... Martin Husemann
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struc... Johnny Billquist
- Re: [PATCH] style(5): No struc... Martin Husemann