Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!cerritos.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!dave
From: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Typename style (was Re: Is typedef char BUFFER[20
Message-ID: <986@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 91 21:44:34 GMT
References: <1212@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> <1991Jan29.210100.8105@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Mar1.103608@IASTATE.EDU>
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 23

In article <1991Mar1.103608@IASTATE.EDU> john@IASTATE.EDU (Hascall John Paul) writes:
>
>#define FOO 4
>typedef struct {
>      char    f_thing;
>      int     f_thang[FOO];
>} Foo;                        (or FooType, or fooType)
>Foo foo;

I hope you don't do this on any code I ever have to look at.  Names that
differ only by the case of the letters are way too close, IMHO, even if
they are related.

That aside, I agree there should be some kind of C style standard (or
guideline, if you like), which would set forth some naming conventions
and the like, and which would also protect these conventions from
being used for something else.

-- 
		Dave Schaumann		dave@cs.arizona.edu
'Dog Gang'!  Where do they get off calling us the 'Dog Gang'?  I'm beginning to
think the party's over.  I'm beginning to think maybe we don't need a dog.  Or
maybe we need a *new* dog.  Or maybe we need a *cat*! - Amazing Stories