From owner-freebsd-current Sun Oct 20 18:33:27 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA09802 for current-outgoing; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 18:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA09797; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 18:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.0/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id BAA20803; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 01:32:42 GMT Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:32:42 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock Reply-To: Michael Hancock To: John Polstra cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, wollman@lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: <199610202112.OAA04687@austin.polstra.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, John Polstra wrote: > > >Don't do that, then. It's horrid style anyway (IMAO), and you > > >/certainly/ don't see any native Berkeley code doing that. The style > > >guide should discourage the practice if it doesn't already. > > > > I agree. Typedef should only be used for scalar types and function > > types. > > Why do you say that? There's already precedent for using typedefs > for structs in, for example, the "DIR" type of . And it > is in line with C++ practice, where the struct, class, or union > keyword is almost never used outside of the declaration. (I know, > this is C, not C++. But the idea that the name of a type should > not carry unnecessary information about its representation is a > valid one.) It's questionable to define a typedef just to save typing the word struct. Regards, Mike Hancock