Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!m1!bevan
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Why have xxx_t typedef names (was Re: Is typedef char BUFFER[20] legal?)
Message-ID: <BEVAN.91Jan30084205@rhino.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: 30 Jan 91 08:42:05 GMT
References: <1212@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>
	<1991Jan29.210100.8105@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk
Distribution: comp
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
Lines: 20
In-reply-to: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of 29 Jan 91 21:01:00 GMT

In article  <1991Jan29.210100.8105@zoo.toronto.edu>
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes :
> In article <1212@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>
> paul@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Paul Siu) writes:
> >Can anyone also tell me what is the most common style convention for type
> >names, I usually put them all in capitals.
> 
> Insofar as there is a consensus, it's to put them in lower case with a
> suffix "_t", e.g. "uid_t" as the type for userids.

What is the purpose of the "_t" ... etc. postfixes ?
It obviously makes any variables defined by a typedef'd type very
clear, but is that important?  I think not.

``Recommended C Coding Standards''(v5.3) mentions them in section 11, but
only says ``Typedeffed names often have "_t" appended to their name''.

I'm still left with the question, why have postfixes?

Stephen J. Bevan		bevan@cs.man.ac.uk