Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
[This should be good for some useless weekend flaming.]
Yeah! ;-)
Chad Reese wrote:
Don't blame Chad for this quote, it was me!
to move away from such arbitrary dogmatism. The argument given for banning
typedefs altogether is that nested typedefs are confusing to programmers. I
I thought the main reason was that you can't have forward declarations of
typedefs, while you can have for structs.
That's a better argument than the one in the HTML version of
Documentation/CodingStyle.txt that I had bookmarked (which was what I
cited). Interestingly, if I look at the *current* Linux
Documentation/CodingStyle.txt for 2.6.28-rc6, the blanket interdiction
of typedefs is no longer there! Things *have* evolved, as I said they'd
have to, to recognize 5 (a good Illuminati number) cases where typedefs
are permitted. Superficially, based on Chad's description (I admit that
I haven't been reviewing his patches) the Cavium case would seem to fall
into the first category. Is the MIPS Linux community now some kind of
ultra-orthodox sub-sect of the Linux cult? ;o)
Regards,
Kevin K.
