Thread

1. VacAttrStatsP vs VacAttrStats * (typedef'ing pointer types)

   Jan Urbański <j.urbanski@students.mimuw.edu.pl> — 2008-05-02T21:22:55Z

   While looking around vacuum.h (for my GSoC project) I found:
   typedef struct VacAttrStats *VacAttrStatsP;
   and then throughout the code sometimes VacAttrStats *foo is used and 
   sometimes VacAttrStatsP bar is used.
   
   Call this obsessive-compulsive disorder, but it kind of bothers me. Is 
   there a reason for using both notations? If not, then which one is 
   preferred and should I write a patch for it or should I just take a pill 
   or two and focus on important things?
   
   Regards,
   Jan
   -- 
   Jan Urbanski
   GPG key ID: E583D7D2
   
   ouden estin
   
   

2. Re: VacAttrStatsP vs VacAttrStats * (typedef'ing pointer types)

   Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> — 2008-05-02T21:53:01Z

   On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 23:22 +0200, Jan Urbański wrote:
   > While looking around vacuum.h (for my GSoC project) I found:
   > typedef struct VacAttrStats *VacAttrStatsP;
   > and then throughout the code sometimes VacAttrStats *foo is used and 
   > sometimes VacAttrStatsP bar is used.
   
   Personally I think we should be consistent about this and just use one
   form for a given type.
   
   (I don't really care which variant is preferred. Personally, I think
   that hiding pointer types inside a typedef is evil and wrong, but it is
   relatively common practice in the source...)
   
   -Neil
   
   
   
   

3. Re: VacAttrStatsP vs VacAttrStats * (typedef'ing pointer types)

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-05-02T21:53:31Z

   =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <j.urbanski@students.mimuw.edu.pl> writes:
   > While looking around vacuum.h (for my GSoC project) I found:
   > typedef struct VacAttrStats *VacAttrStatsP;
   > and then throughout the code sometimes VacAttrStats *foo is used and 
   > sometimes VacAttrStatsP bar is used.
   
   > Call this obsessive-compulsive disorder, but it kind of bothers me. Is 
   > there a reason for using both notations? If not, then which one is 
   > preferred and should I write a patch for it or should I just take a pill 
   > or two and focus on important things?
   
   Hmm.  We have a fairly widespread convention that pointers to structs
   can be separately typedef'd as Foo where the underlying struct is
   typedef FooData.  This isn't following that naming convention though,
   and right offhand "FooP" doesn't seem an improvement over "Foo *".
   
   I also notice that there are many more uses of VacAttrStats * than
   VacAttrStatsP, so the collective vote about which notation is clearer
   seems already taken.
   
   If it bugs you, I'd suggest getting rid of typedef VacAttrStatsP
   altogether and using VacAttrStats * everywhere.  It's surely not
   too important though...
   
   			regards, tom lane