coding style question

coding style question

[Jay Denebeim]

I've noticed that in 2.6 many of the constructs like:

typedef struct foo { blah }

have been changed to 

struct foo { blah }

what was the reasoning for this?

Thanks
Jay
-- 
* Jay Denebeim  Moderator       rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.org                *
* moderator contact address:    b5mod-request@deepthot.org        *
* personal contact address:     denebeim@deepthot.org             *

Re: coding style question

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:16:48PM +0000, Jay Denebeim wrote:
> I've noticed that in 2.6 many of the constructs like:
> 
> typedef struct foo { blah }
> 
> have been changed to 
> 
> struct foo { blah }
> 
> what was the reasoning for this?

We hate typedefs.

-- 
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon 
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince 
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep 
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain

Re: coding style question

[Jay Denebeim]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:16:48PM +0000, Jay Denebeim wrote:
(I mentioned typedefs being removed)
> > what was the reasoning for this?
> 
> We hate typedefs.

Well, that's certainly convincing.  Funny that, I don't recall hating
typedefs, in fact I distinctly recall liking them and being happy when
they were added to Lattice's Amiga compiler back in the stone age.  Is
there some particular reason 'we' hate them?

Jay
-- 
* Jay Denebeim  Moderator       rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.org                *
* moderator contact address:    b5mod-request@deepthot.org        *
* personal contact address:     denebeim@deepthot.org             *

Re: coding style question

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:40:27 -0700 (MST) Jay Denebeim wrote:

| On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
| 
| > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:16:48PM +0000, Jay Denebeim wrote:
| (I mentioned typedefs being removed)
| > > what was the reasoning for this?
| > 
| > We hate typedefs.
| 
| Well, that's certainly convincing.  Funny that, I don't recall hating
| typedefs, in fact I distinctly recall liking them and being happy when
| they were added to Lattice's Amiga compiler back in the stone age.  Is
| there some particular reason 'we' hate them?

For anything other than very basic types, they hide/obfuscate
data structures.  If it's a struct, we had rather see a struct
used there.

--
~Randy

Re: coding style question

[Jay Denebeim]

In article <20040225112905.33bfdea8.rddunlap@osdl.org>,
Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote:

>For anything other than very basic types, they hide/obfuscate data
>structures.  If it's a struct, we had rather see a struct used there.

Okay, that's more or less what I figured it was, thanks.  Personally I
never found that it did that for me, the 'struct' always seemed
redundant.  That's just my opinion though, and I can certainly
understand others.

Thanks for the answer.
Jay
-- 
* Jay Denebeim  Moderator       rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.org                *
* moderator contact address:    b5mod-request@deepthot.org        *
* personal contact address:     denebeim@deepthot.org             *

Re: coding style question

[Patrick Mansfield]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:40:27AM -0700, Jay Denebeim wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:16:48PM +0000, Jay Denebeim wrote:
> (I mentioned typedefs being removed)
> > > what was the reasoning for this?
> > 
> > We hate typedefs.
> 
> Well, that's certainly convincing.  Funny that, I don't recall hating
> typedefs, in fact I distinctly recall liking them and being happy when
> they were added to Lattice's Amiga compiler back in the stone age.  Is
> there some particular reason 'we' hate them?

Hi here's part of Greg's presentation from some time back:

http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2002_kernel_codingstyle_talk/html/mgp00024.html

Really you want the next slide off the above ;-)

-- Patrick Mansfield

Re: coding style question

[Bryan Henderson]

>Personally I
>never found that it did that for me, the 'struct' always seemed
>redundant.

I don't find it redundant at all -- it tells me the type is a structure as 
opposed to a scalar or pointer.  Realistically, no one studies the 
declarations of types before reading the code that uses them.  When I see 
a variable foo, it helps me a lot to guess what the variable is if I know 
it is a structure.

For that reason, the usual anti-typedef rule is just "we hate typedefs for 
structs," since the only difference between "struct foo" and "foo_t" is 
that one uses slightly fewer characters and obscures the fact that it is a 
structure.  On the other hand, the difference between "int" and "pid_t" is 
much greater.  The name "pid_t" carries a lot of information in it that 
"int" does not.

Re: coding style question

[Jeff Garzik]

Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
* POSIX prefers "struct foo" as opposed to "foo" or "foo_t"

* typedefs obscure the fact that a data structure is in fact a 
structure, and not a native machine type.  Typically typedefs are best 
used for discrete elements those contents are either opaque or a single 
value.

	Jeff

Re: coding style question

[Clay Haapala]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Patrick Mansfield outgrape:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:40:27AM -0700, Jay Denebeim wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:16:48PM +0000, Jay Denebeim wrote:
>> (I mentioned typedefs being removed)
>> > > what was the reasoning for this?
>> > 
>> > We hate typedefs.
>> 
>> Well, that's certainly convincing.  Funny that, I don't recall
>> hating typedefs, in fact I distinctly recall liking them and being
>> happy when they were added to Lattice's Amiga compiler back in the
>> stone age.  Is there some particular reason 'we' hate them?
> 
> Hi here's part of Greg's presentation from some time back:
> 
> http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2002_kernel_codingstyle_talk/html/mgp00024.html
> 
> Really you want the next slide off the above ;-)
> 

"... and we hates hobbitses."

Sorry, just couldn't resist, but that voice popped into my head.
-- 
Clay Haapala (chaapala@cisco.com) Cisco Systems SRBU +1 763-398-1056
   6450 Wedgwood Rd, Suite 130 Maple Grove MN 55311 PGP: C89240AD
 "You thought there wouldn't be a nuclear war?  There have been
  *seventeen* of them!"
   -- from "Millenium", by John Varley