Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #3906 > unrolled thread

macro conventions

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  macro conventions "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-13 12:56 -0400
    Re: macro conventions pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-13 13:08 -0400
    Re: macro conventions Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-13 13:14 -0400
      Re: macro conventions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-13 11:41 -0700
        Re: macro conventions "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-14 23:08 -0400
    Re: macro conventions ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-05-13 13:15 -0500
      Re: macro conventions "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-14 23:11 -0400
      Re: macro conventions "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-15 04:00 -0400
        Re: macro conventions Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-15 11:15 +0000
          Re: macro conventions Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-16 04:36 +0300
            Re: macro conventions Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-05-16 09:56 +0000
              Re: macro conventions Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-16 19:00 +0300
              Re: macro conventions Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-16 19:10 +0000
                Re: macro conventions Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-22 21:27 +0300
      Re: macro conventions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-15 06:50 -0700
        Re: macro conventions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-15 08:29 -0700
          Re: macro conventions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-16 07:40 +1200
            Re: macro conventions "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2011-05-15 14:52 -0500
        Re: macro conventions ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-05-16 02:22 -0500
          Re: macro conventions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-16 14:18 +0100
            Re: macro conventions David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 08:03 -0700
              Re: macro conventions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-16 17:32 +0100
          Re: macro conventions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-16 08:43 -0700
            Re: macro conventions Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-16 14:47 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#4072

On May 16, 9:18 am, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> ralph <nt_consultin...@yahoo.net> writes:
> > On Sun, 15 May 2011 06:50:54 -0700, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org>
> > wrote:
>
> >>ralph <nt_consultin...@yahoo.net> writes:
> >>[...]
> >>> The actual 'rules' and conventions are more complicated and others
> >>> will be along shortly to quote chapter and verse. However, in order to
> >>> avoid collisions, best practice is simply never create a macro with an
> >>> underscore for your own use and use always use uppercase.
>
> >>TO be clear, it's leading underscores that should be avoided.  FOO_BAR,
> >>for example, is perfectly ok.  Trailing underscores are also ok, though
> >>I wouldn't use them without a good reason.
>
> > Thanks for that catch. I did make it sound like underscores should be
> > avoided throughout an identifier, when they are in fact OK.
>
> > It should also be amplified that double underscores "_ _" are reserved
> > even within or trailing an identifier
>
> >      FOO_BAR is OK, FOO__BAR or FOOBAR__ is not.
>
> What's your source?
>
> <snip>
> --
> Ben.

I'd guess his source is the C++ standard, where any identifier with __
is reserved.  Yes, not generally relevant here, unless you want go
keep your C header compatible with C++ for some reason.

-David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4081

David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> writes:

> On May 16, 9:18 am, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> ralph <nt_consultin...@yahoo.net> writes:
<snip>
>> > It should also be amplified that double underscores "_ _" are reserved
>> > even within or trailing an identifier
>>
>> >      FOO_BAR is OK, FOO__BAR or FOOBAR__ is not.
>>
>> What's your source?
<snip>

> I'd guess his source is the C++ standard, where any identifier with __
> is reserved.  Yes, not generally relevant here, unless you want go
> keep your C header compatible with C++ for some reason.

I'd say it is relevant here, but it would have helped to know it was
"just in case" advice rather than the usual meaning of "reserved".

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4079

ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> writes:
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 06:50:54 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
[...]
>>TO be clear, it's leading underscores that should be avoided.  FOO_BAR,
>>for example, is perfectly ok.  Trailing underscores are also ok, though
>>I wouldn't use them without a good reason.
>
> Thanks for that catch. I did make it sound like underscores should be
> avoided throughout an identifier, when they are in fact OK. 
>
> It should also be amplified that double underscores "_ _" are reserved
> even within or trailing an identifier
>
>      FOO_BAR is OK, FOO__BAR or FOOBAR__ is not.
[...]

No, they aren't.  I think C++ reserves idenifiers with double
underscores (so they can be used for name mangling, if I recall
correctly), but C doesn't.

Still, it certainly couldn't hurt to avoid double underscores in
C code.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4122

In article <lniptafy7p.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:

> ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> writes:
> > On Sun, 15 May 2011 06:50:54 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> > wrote:
> [...]
> >>TO be clear, it's leading underscores that should be avoided.  FOO_BAR,
> >>for example, is perfectly ok.  Trailing underscores are also ok, though
> >>I wouldn't use them without a good reason.
> >
> > Thanks for that catch. I did make it sound like underscores should be
> > avoided throughout an identifier, when they are in fact OK. 
> >
> > It should also be amplified that double underscores "_ _" are reserved
> > even within or trailing an identifier
> >
> >      FOO_BAR is OK, FOO__BAR or FOOBAR__ is not.
> [...]
> 
> No, they aren't.  I think C++ reserves idenifiers with double
> underscores (so they can be used for name mangling, if I recall
> correctly), but C doesn't.
> 
> Still, it certainly couldn't hurt to avoid double underscores in
> C code.

Because every incursion on user name space is significant?

-- 
Michael Press

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web