Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #154095
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: typedef ... refactored |
| Date | 2020-08-28 04:08 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <86r1rr9gea.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <7a5f16a3-d30d-46ec-9926-b0736428902do@googlegroups.com> <rgoo37$3ca$1@dont-email.me> <slrnrj3c08.u86.please@logancomp.rathbonelaw.com> <875z9q445k.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > Personally I don't bother with typedefs for struct types. The > type already has a perfectly good name, "struct treeNode". [...] Forgive me for saying this, but you're begging the question. The whole issue here is whether "struct treeNode" is a perfectly good name or if another name might be better. Simply asserting that "struct treeNode" is a perfectly good name doesn't address the issue at all.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: typedef ... refactored Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-08-28 04:08 -0700
csiph-web