Re: RFC: do we want/need the "Ptr" typedefs for internal code ?
On 3/9/21 1:23 PM, 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.
Yep. I've never seen the point either (especially after we realized the
problem with const pointers several years ago); I just followed along
blindly because that was the convention and I figured *someone* must
have a special place in their heart for them. I wouldn't bat an eye if
they were removed.