Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] memory: make memory API parsable by gtkdoc-scan

[Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>]

Am 14.12.2011 18:19, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 12/14/2011 11:11 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 14 December 2011 16:55, Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  
>> wrote:
>>> I think in this case, we're just going to have to deviate from the 
>>> standard.
>>> The benefit is great, the practice is widespread, and there's no 
>>> immediate
>>> likelihood of changing glib's coding style practices.
>>>
>>> I still think we should adhere to this policy where ever possible but I
>>> think we'll have to make an exception for extracting documentation.
>>
>> Disagree. A docs tool that requires us to change our coding/naming
>> conventions (as opposed to merely how we mark stuff up in comments
>> or whatever) is a broken tool. Doubly so if it mandates violation
>> of the C standards.
>>
>> We want to be able to document the structs/whatever we have now,
>> not only after we've done some enormous change to every struct we
>> have to bring it into line with somebody else's conventions.
>
> If you have a better suggestion, I'm all for it.  But since C is not 
> the most parseable language ever invented, basically every tool comes 
> with constraints about coding style.
>
> We can spend forever searching for the perfect tool, invent one 
> ourselves, or just suck it up and use what's already out there.
>
> The C language enforcement police aren't going to come knocking at our 
> doors tomorrow.  This doesn't create a bug or remove a feature.
>
> At some level, we need to be pragmatic.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori


Would 's' instead of '_' work?

struct sCamelCase;

typedef struct sCamelCase {
   // ...
} CamelCase;

It does not violate any standard...

Regards,

Stefan Weil