From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Mon May 25 04:06:46 2009 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YiaMWxevZSvCVZHM/dcO664eUteEzqUr7zxAE1z6XBw=; b=aKr6dL+Ymtm+mfkB4GZEuCJo7mp1Nur85U6Tq28tigXnBpe64NxrOH3hUJ/gmIY83N XvpnT7Tiapw5X31WzfIiczj1Hzg7Q/Nq7yFEcJoynBpDpHk7W9AClatSaW0wNCDX/COQ by5DVALI+LyHUqkm1Pok7+GZbp3S22xQfjsSc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=n1OpDG3IcuUyl3WIT+iUxTcUtK5UaIUYrDYxg9AM1VtkrP8BD7Y+jhdQafIDbP53DT 9LnnLChHeP3h7R6HVKXiXDrri5jzohreLjWWNYKpjjeVIyljbUe8pmZhcm1seIFtfX3K fLp6Q/+c/DKo/VbfTy5WDFjDdEXZGvnc207eQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A19CAC1.20206@chello.nl> References: <4A19BBD3.8060409@freesbee.fr> <4A19CAC1.20206@chello.nl> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:49 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [MiNT] anonymous structs and C99 From: Miro Kropacek To: Henk Robbers Cc: "[MiNT] Mailing-List" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd25016dec5b2046ab80c41 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: miro.kropacek@gmail.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: --000e0cd25016dec5b2046ab80c41 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > If you hate typing so much, then why do you type meaningles names > like pointer1 & pointer2 That was only an example :) The more local a name, the shorter it can be. True and I'm following this rule of course. What annoys me is that "dotting". For example, that union construct is part of larger structure so the smaller number of dots the better. In my opinion is nicer to write p->x than p->u.x, especially when the 'u' has no real meaning. But, I can't ask for much -- this issues are nicely solvable with C++ so no big deal for common programming, it's just Atari where I want / have to use strict C. -- MiKRO / Mystic Bytes http://mikro.atari.org --000e0cd25016dec5b2046ab80c41 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If you hate typing so much, then why do you type meaningles names
like pointer1 & pointer2
That was only an example :)


The more local a name, the shorter it can be.
True and I'm following this rule of course. What annoys me is that "dotting". For example, that union construct is part of larger structure so the smaller number of dots the better. In my opinion is nicer to write p->x than p->u.x, especially when the 'u' has no real meaning. But, I can't ask for much -- this issues are nicely solvable with C++ so no big deal for common programming, it's just Atari where I want / have to use strict C.

--
MiKRO / Mystic Bytes
http://mikro.atari.org
--000e0cd25016dec5b2046ab80c41--