Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 01:44:18 +0000 From: Andrew Mishchenko <andrew@driftin.net> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Style fixups for proc.h by andrew@driftin.net Message-ID: <20030202014418.GA25928@driftin.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat 01 Feb, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Well, there is something to be said for trying to avoid userland > namespace pollution, but it is still somewhat of a stretch since most > userland programs #include standard and system headers before > they #include their own, and the includes are typically done before > any code. > > But I see no reason why the underscore methodology would need to be > used for kernelland prototypes. C has its problems and we need to live > with them, but we shouldn't have to add bogus underscores to prototyped > arguments to work around those problems. I'd prefer normally named > arguments but if I were given only a choice between underscored named > arguments and unnamed arguments, I'd take unnamed arguments hands down. As has been said earlier in this thread, having named arguments can often help new coders learn and help readability (one knows what an argument is for from looking at the header file as opposed to having to look through the C file), which is why I suggested having underscored named arguments when they are useful to have named, and no names when naming them is not useful. Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030202014418.GA25928>