Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 05:20:19 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <86y289vqt8.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <s9iea5$n5c$1@dont-email.me> <s9oidl$te9$1@dont-email.me> <867dijb22a.fsf@linuxsc.com> <sblh9g$muc$1@dont-email.me> <86a6mt8g69.fsf@linuxsc.com> <sdmi0u$55d$1@dont-email.me> <20210727083246.384@kylheku.com> <se10pa$h58$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3555d3b4345d8bc729243ac3d8ab4b79"; logging-data="30354"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9mR061B8VfnHZgRy1fBNwbj81x+9+8KM="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X/lF+jO1qNegV+u7C7mOkm2R2Ik= sha1:EFiUhZhlzC0U2MRPUJlTi2yWUCM=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:162639

John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> writes:

> Yeah, and what I'm saying is don't half-ass the abstraction - either
> make it fully abstract or don't bother.  Don't hide the information
> I need to properly use the type behind a typedef.  I would rather
> you leave the type "naked", even if it's more eye-stabby or a pain
> in the ass to type.

Note that what you're saying here is different from what you were
saying before.  It isn't that putting pointerness inside typedefs
will per se cause problems, but only that you don't like them.
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but don't dress it
up as something more than what it is.