Re: [Libclc-developers] An alternative clc_list approach + an iterator.

[<bo...@me...>]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Bjørn Augestad writes:
> 
>>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>
>>>clc_stl.h says:
>>>
>>>  typedef struct clc_list_tag* clc_list;
>>>  typedef struct clc_iterator_tag* clc_iterator;
>>>
>>>I think typedefs to pointers like this is a bad idea.
>>>(...) I'd rather see
>>>
>>>  typedef struct clc_list_tag     clc_list;
>>>  typedef struct clc_iterator_tag clc_iterator;
>>>
>>>(...)
>>
>>Thanks for the feedback. The general concensus on c.l.c seems to be that 
>>it's OK to typedef the pointer if no struct members are available 
>>outside the implementation.
> 
> 
> That's not what c.l.c said last time.  They said one should normally not
> typedef a struct at all, but it's OK if no struct members are available
> outside the implementation.  While typedefs to pointers are evil.  See:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=newscache%2405mrbh%24jt1%241%40tomato.pcug.org.au
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b553pt%245f8%241%40sunnews.cern.ch

I must have misread those the last time, possibly mixing in memories 
from the clc_bitset discussion where this issue was discussed as well. 
Memory can be quite selective...

Let's continue to disagree for a while, shall we? ;-)


>>We can compromise by dropping the _tag suffix,
>>	typedef struct foo* foo;
> 
> 
> Absolutely not!  If we have a struct tag and a typedef with the same
> name, they should be the same type.

That was a joke. :-)


>>Does the design easily create mem leaks?
> 
> 
> Maybe.  It would be safer with
>   struct clc_iterator iter;
>   clc_iterator_init(&iter, ...);
> because then many iterators would not need to be freed at all.

Can't do that with an ADT. It has to be allocated since it is an 
incomplete type.


-- 
boa

libclc home: http://libclc.sourceforge.net