Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Typedef rule
Re: Typedef rule
From: Michael Sparmann <theseven_at_gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 21:19:53 +0100
> (1) No typedef for structs and unions. These types help with the
> aforementioned problems by themselves. Don't typedef just to avoid
> writing out "struct" and "union".
> (2) No typedef for trivial ints, like normal counters (except tick) or
> something like that.
> (3) Allow typedefs where reasonable for integral types, i.e. where it
> helps enforcing a specific type, improves readability and portability.
> (4) Allow typedefs for void, as to give "void *" a more telling type.
> (5) Generally no typedef for pointers. Hiding a pointer between some
> type remains discouraged except in one case: Hiding that the type is a
> pointer at all, when the type is strictly used to identify an object
> (compatible to long/intptr_t). Typedefing a pointer might be okay if it
> points to an incomplete struct/union. This case is actually similar to
> (3) where you typedef intptr_t to something better named.
+1 from me as well. In my opinion the current rules are too strict.
Received on 2013-11-29