RFC: do we want/need the "Ptr" typedefs for internal code ?

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. There are a few things that make me question the status quo - If we want a const pointer, we can't use const virDomainDefPtr def because that expands to "struct _virDomainDef * const", which is not what we need semantically. Instead we must write const virDomainDef *def It is not at all obvious why these two are different, but none the less they are, which is confusing to contributors To me this a compelling reason to consider the "Ptr" typedefs a waste of time, if not actively harmful. Please don't suggest adding virDomainDefConstPtr too ! - Writing 'virDomainDefPtr' is actually two characters more typing than 'virDomainDef *'. IOW these "Ptr" typedefs aren't saving us time when writing code. - This convention of having "Ptr" typedefs is atypical among C projects I've worked on. Anything that is peculiar to libvirt is another item that new contributors need to learn, so has a cost to the project that must be weighed against its benefit. We can't do anything about the use "Ptr" in the include/ files because that is public ABI. We can potentially eliminate "Ptr" types everywhere else in the codebase, even the src/libvirt*.c files corresponding to the public includes. Does anyone have suggestions for how these "Ptr" typedefs are benefiting libvirt ? Would anyone miss 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 :|