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

[Dan McGee]

On Thursday, July 7, 2011, Sebastian Nowicki <sebnow at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Can you find a source for this? I feel like most typedefs, whether in
system code or user code, use the _t suffix in C code I've seen.

> 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
>>
>>
>
>