On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:29:53 +0200, Konstantin Osipov
<Kostja.Osipov@stripped> wrote:
> * Tor Didriksen <Tor.Didriksen@stripped> [09/06/22 17:23]:
>> "Structure types are typedef'ed to an all-upper-case identifier."
>> Can someone explain the reasoning behind this?
>> ALL_UPPERCASE_NAME says DANGEROUS_THIS_IS_A_MACRO to me, rather than
>> struct/class.
>>
>> typedef struct foo { ... } FOO;
>> Is legacy C-style, and does not belong in a C++ style guide (imho).
>>
>> Roy had an email about this:
>> http://lists.mysql.com/internals/36570
>> I could find no objections to his mail, the thread simply died.
>
> This is an obsolete convention, but it is still widely used in the
> optimizer and semantic analysis code, even in new parts of it. It
> was difficult for me to involve some optimizer engineers into
> discussion about the coding style.
>
> In runtime, I find it largely irrelevant: I advocate against
> introduction of new struct objects into the code base, classes
> should be used instead, and for classes we use a different naming
> rule.
>
> We also have a lot of legacy code that follows this old guideline.
> typedef's are really a pain to maintain, since they obfuscate
> tags-jumping, make forward declarations more difficult.
>
> I guess updating the old code could be a task for reengineering
> team. Drizle did it one of the first things.
> I would gladly review any patch that removes unnecessary typedefs
> from the code, and submit such patches myself once in a while.
> Nobody else, however, seem to have done much about it instead of
> talking :-<.
>
> Please submit a change request to the coding style group to remove
> that rule (unless this mail is already a change request).
>
>
Note that I am not suggesting a big effort to remove all typedefs.
I'm suggesting to deprecate the rule, and say something like
"you should consider removing these kind of typedefs from the existing
codebase"
-- didrik
