On 20020104 Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
>Needing to type 'struct' everywhere is annoying and makes for long lines.
>Other than that it's harmless, and actually, the situation where you have two
>ways of spelling everything is annoying too. Anyway, if it was to be done,
>I'd spell it:
>
> typedef struct super_struct super;
> typedef struct inode_struct inode;
>
> static inline inode *new_inode(super *sb)
> {
> inode *ni = (inode *) malloc(sizeof(inode));
> ...
> }
>
>It won't happen though, because it would generate a massive diff for the sole
>reason of making things prettier, and a very high percentage of existing
>patches would break immediately. If you're going to clean stuff up, you have
>to do it a bit at a time while you're working on other things.
>
>From my point of view, this kind of changes can keep compatability and be done
in small chunks if you do something like
typedef struct inode inode_t;
typedef struct super_block super_block_t;
so old code still builds, new code can use new types and you can patch
code smoothly. And you can grep-r for both usages in the tree.
But all is a matter of preferences. I found it cleaner. Some people
hate the _t suffix. Many people prefer explicit 'struct' than opaque
types. And so on...
-- J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you... mailto:jamagallon@able.es Mandrake Linux release 8.2 (Cooker) for i586 Linux werewolf 2.4.18-pre1-beo #1 SMP Fri Jan 4 02:25:59 CET 2002 i686 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:25 EST