On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:43:04AM -0700, Evan Gates wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:21 AM <sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > C has already a syntax way too rich and flexible. Most of the > > linux coding guidelines is nice. > > There is also a style page[0] at suckless. But again style is subjective > and the most important thing is consistency within a project.
Style and the amount of actually used syntax is different. Style is how you use a set of the syntax. Styles using different sets of the syntax are not to be compared. Here it's not style: it's mostly a reduction of the syntax. Then you could define different styles using the same set of the syntax. But I have to agree, syntax reduction is often, if not always, put in the "style" bag, which I think is wrong. > > add a suffix to your type (u8_t, struct my_class_t) > > Don't do this if you're using anything POSIX. The _t namespace is > reserved for POSIX types.[1] If I recall properly, I was nesting structs with type names intersecting the C keywords (float...), any short suffix will do actually or none if not conflicting with anything. > [1] > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_02_02 On this web page, when I tried to get the definition of the [CX] code related to the _t suffix I got a nice page complaining javascript is nowhere to be found, I had to use google to find the right page... bad omens. -- Sylvain
