Re: patch to style(9) man page to reflect current practices

[Chris Pressey <cpressey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:16:48 -0800
Chris Pressey <cpressey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:22:50 +0100
> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:18:58AM -0800, Chris Pressey wrote:
> > > There was one other change I wanted to make, re:
> > > 
> > > "In header files visible to userland applications, prototypes that
> > > are visible must use either ``protected'' names (ones beginning
> > > with an underscore) or no names with the types.  It is preferable
> > > to use pro- tected names.  E.g., use:
> > >      void    function(int);
> > >      or:
> > >      void    function(int _fd);"
> > 
> > Well, I say simple drop the name.
> > 
> > > I completely fail to see the rationale for that, but I might be
> > > missing something.  Also, I don't think I've ever seen prototype
> > > declarations like that, but I probably just haven't been looking
> > > hard enough.
> > 
> > You might have a #define fd foo somewhere.
> 
> Ah.
> 
> Well, I count about 470 occurances of the form #define _foo in the
> source tree (more if you count _FOO and __foo and __FOO,) and there's
> nothing in style(9) that I can see that forbids definining macros with
> a leading underscore.  So I'm inclined to agree with you about just
> dropping the name.
> 
> -Chris

Recently on FreeBSD's cvs list a compromise was suggested, by juli I
think, that declarations in (non-kernel-only) header files should look
like:

	void	function(int /* fd */, char /* foo */);

I think I agree, and if there aren't any objections, I can start working
on patches to the headers and to style(9) to work towards that.

-Chris