[Swan-dev] proposal: "const struct ip_protocol" => "ip_protocol"
D. Hugh Redelmeier
hugh at mimosa.com
Sun Oct 13 17:29:09 UTC 2019
| From: Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney at gmail.com>
| because it gets confusing and is obscure; better to spell out:
| const something
| where the code is being used than leave everyone wondering, for instance, given:
| ip_something(something *foo, const someotherthing *bar, somethingelse *baz);
| which are typos and which are correct? imnsho field_desc et.al.,
| being made typedef const struct were a massive mistake
Clearly I disagree (since I created most of them).
Why is it a mistake? Confusing and obscure? No use should be without
the const, so make it built-in. The const is part of the abstraction.
The "const" is something you should not have to think about separately
at each use of the abstraction.
If I remember correctly, the C const qualifier is now idempotent so
adding a redundant one doesn't generate a compiler error.
| for struct something vs typedef something;
| kernel guidelines say don't use typedefs; we've modified that to say
| "typedef" denotes stay-out but here we're saying welcome aboard
We don't use kernel guidelines except for formatting. This isn't
I don't know what you mean by "stay-out" vs. "welcome aboard".
Very very roughly, struct meant: structuring data transparently,
typedef meant: an abstraction (with varying transparency).
More information about the Swan-dev