> * packages.h: typedef package_t
> -struct package_t {
> +typedef struct package_t {
> char *package;
> char *filename;
> char *md5sum;
> int installer_menu_item;
> struct package_t *next;
> -};
> +} package_t;
>
Actually i think its best to do
typedef struct package_s {
char *package;
char *filename;
char *md5sum;
int installer_menu_item;
struct package_s *next;
} package_t;
in package_s; s is an abriviation for struct so whenever you see
(name)_s you know its a struct in package_t; t is an abreviation for
type so whenever you see (name)_t you know its a type
If _s and _t are mixed up (s used for a type or t used for a struct)
then then it looses all value in representing something.
Its required to define the struct (_s) because *next needs it, and
defining the type (_t) is usefull for refering to it later on instead of
always refering to it as struct package_s
I think one of the reasons people use struct (struct_name) instaed of
just (type_name) is because the difference between the two are sometimes
confused, however if _s and _t are used consistently (and people are
aware thats why its used) then it avoids confusion.
Glenn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
