Re: [RFC]: field name identifier conventions

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>]

Em Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 04:54:35PM +0100, Gerrit Renker escreveu:
> I have a question/suggestion for DCCP/CCID field names, which have a tendency to grow
> into really_quite_long_strings. The convention for field members seems to be
> 
> 
> 	"x"->"x"_<fieldname>
> 
> Examples are in particular
> 
>    * hctx->ccid2hctx_<fieldname>
>    * hcrx->ccid3hcrx_<fieldname>
>    * avr->dccpavr_<fieldname>
>    * av->dccpav_<fieldname>
> 
> The problem is that this naming convention has no apparent benefits: 
>   
>   * which struct is used is evident from the context and need not be encoded
>   * someone reading the code is only interested in the fieldnames
>   * with the line length limit of 80 characters this convention almost inevitably leads to
>     multi-line expression for even the simplest kinds of comparisons and expressions.
> 
> Hence my suggestion is to reduce the replicated "x" field prefix, so that field members become
> shorter, as will be expressions, and the code would be easier to read.
> 
> What is the opinion of other developers / maintainer regarding this? 

Well, while I agree that the names being overly long its a nuisance at
the same time being able to grep for some specific field is really nice
and was the intention.

Long ago DaveM accepted patches for struct sock, but then there its just
->sk_FIELD_NAME, not 10 characters like in the ccids case. struct inode
fields predate that even, but then its just ->i_FIELD_NAME.

I think that providing a unique namespace for struct member names is ok
if it doesn't get that long (mea culpa in the aforementioned cases 8)).

- Arnaldo