[pacman-dev] [PATCH 00/25] Rename types from pmfoo_t to alpm_foo_t

[Sebastian Nowicki]

This probably won't change considering it's ubiquitous and
insignificant, but since we're on the subject, the "_t" suffix is
reserved in ISO C (or is it POSIX?). Considering the "alpm_" prefix is
used it should be safe. If the suffix were to be removed might want to
get rid of the typedefs (i.e. use "struct alpm_pkg" not "alpm_pkg_t").

Not really suggesting it, just thought I'd mention it.

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> On 28/06/11 22:32, Allan McRae wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/06/11 22:17, Dan McGee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Allan McRae<allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> After discussion here and on IRC, it was decided that rather than
>>>>> changing the one struct from alpm_foo_t to pmfoo_t for consistency,
>>>>> it would instead be better to rename all the other structs to follow
>>>>> the alpm_foo_t scheme. Given we are pushing towards 4.0, now is the
>>>>> best (only?) time to do this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not going to send the enitre patchset here as that would just be
>>>>> overkill. Take a look at the patches in my repo:
>>>>> http://projects.archlinux.org/users/allan/pacman.git/log/?h=breakshit
>>>>
>>>> Two observations:
>>>> 1. Where is pmpkg_t?
>>>
>>> In with pmtrans_t for some reason... will fix!
>>>
>>>> 2. Does anyone else find "grp" kind of silly? pkg is ubiquitous and at
>>>> least less than 50% of the length of package, but I might propose
>>>> shifting the type name to "alpm_group_t".
>>>
>>> Seems reasonable to me. I can adjust this.
>>>
>>
>> Do we want function names with "grp" in them to be changed too? e.g.
>> alpm_option_add_ignoregrp, alpm_db_readgrp, alpm_db_get_grpcache, etc...
>>  That can come in a separate patchset.
>
> Yeah, I forgot to bring that into the discussion- 100% agree with just
> a subsequent patch adjusting these names. Not sure if you want them to
> be like 'ignoregroup' or 'ignore_group', 'groupcache' or
> 'group_cache', etc.
>
> -Dan
>
>