Re: [PATCH] Fix documentation link for svn_dirent_t

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:50:30AM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> Bleh. C allows you to flow 'em together, so why make extra work for
> yourself... Well, for typedefs at least. I agree that variables shouldn't
> be declared along with the struct declaration (tho I have defined
> variables (global constants) using unnamed/untypedef'd structs).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for GNU style. I'm really not
clear on why they think that's a good idea. I'm fine with the way we're
doing things.

> Personally, I prefer to avoid struct tags altogether. I use them only for
> forward refs or other kinds of recursive/self linking.

*nod* which is why my initial patch removed the tag. ghudson didn't
like that so I resubmitted adding them. I don't really care which way
we do it. But it ought to be consistent.

> I don't use gdb, so I'm not familiar with ghudson's comment on the utility
> of the struct tag over the typedef. If there *is* some utility, then I'd
> be +0 on adding them for gdb users.

Not sure myself but if the tag exists it really needs to be the same as
the typedef. Otherwise it breaks doxygen and SWIG (to some extent).

The only two cases where they are used but don't match are:
svn_dirent_t and svn_error_t

The minimal version of the patch only fixes those.

Personally, I could care less if we fix all the instances, but I figured
while I was looking for them I'd look for all of them. I wanted to find
them now rather than later so that they could be fixed by the voting
deadline tomorrow.

-- 
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org