On 10/21/07, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have a question/suggestion for DCCP/CCID field names, which have a tendency to grow > into really_quite_long_strings. The convention for field members seems to be > > > "x"->"x"_<fieldname> > > Examples are in particular > > * hctx->ccid2hctx_<fieldname> > * hcrx->ccid3hcrx_<fieldname> > * avr->dccpavr_<fieldname> > * av->dccpav_<fieldname> > > The problem is that this naming convention has no apparent benefits: > > * which struct is used is evident from the context and need not be encoded > * someone reading the code is only interested in the fieldnames > * with the line length limit of 80 characters this convention almost inevitably leads to > multi-line expression for even the simplest kinds of comparisons and expressions. > > Hence my suggestion is to reduce the replicated "x" field prefix, so that field members become > shorter, as will be expressions, and the code would be easier to read. > > What is the opinion of other developers / maintainer regarding this? > I agree with you totally. I think the best way to do this is once Arnaldo agrees and then prepare a big patch to do this. If we don't get Arnaldo's buy in then it will be hell to maintain the patch set. This approach will still be a pain as you'll probably have to redo your exisiting patches but it is better to do it once then multiple times. Ian -- Web1: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Web2: http://www.jandi.co.nz Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
