RE: #defined types

[Dave Mitchell]

Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 8:10 PM -0800 2/23/02, Brent Dax wrote:
> >     typedef struct foo_t * FooPtr;
> >     typedef struct foo_t FOO;
> 
> Y'know, thinking about this, I don't like this trick. That should be 
> FOO, and FOO *.
> 
> We either typedef the struct, or the pointer to a struct. Not both.


.... and my personal vote is the for the former. I feel more
comfortable with

        SV *sv;
        
than

        SV sv;


I like to explicitly know when I'm dealing with a pointer.

(just MHO).