Re: RFC: do we want/need the "Ptr" typedefs for internal code ?
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 07:23:15PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 17:44 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> One of the conventions we have had since the early days of libvirt is
> that every struct typedef, has a corresponding "Ptr" typedef too.
>
> For example
>
> typedef struct _virDomainDef virDomainDef;
> typedef virDomainDef *virDomainDefPtr;
>
> Periodically someone has questioned what the purpose of these Ptr
> typedefs is, and we've not had an compelling answer, other than
> that's what we've always done.
>
[...]
>
> Does anyone have suggestions for how these "Ptr" typedefs are
> benefiting libvirt ? Would anyone miss them ?
I consider them pointless obfuscation and would love to see them go.
Note that I'm not talking just about humans either: some tooling also
struggles a bit with the additional layer of indirection.
That's good to know. If developer tooling usage is being harmed that
significantly strengthens the case for removing them.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|