Am Di., 15. Juli 2025 um 19:04 Uhr schrieb Collin Funk <collin.fu...@gmail.com>: > > Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <marc.nieper+...@gmail.com> writes: > > > (*) Unfortunately, they often use the POSIX-reserved "_t" namespace, > > but that's a different issue. > > I used to feel the same way, but other namespaces for types end up being > ugly. For example, I think vim uses "*_T". > > It is unlikely that POSIX will standardize names that Gnulib uses like > idx_t and internal system definitions should start with an underscore or > two (ideally). So it isn't a huge deal, in my opinion.
I wouldn't change existing names (unless they would interfere with POSIX names in the future), but I would not introduce new _t names. Less ugly options than _T are, in my opinion: (1) _type (2) no ending at all (e.g. typedef struct string_buffer string_buffer) (3) CamelCase for typedef'd structs (e.g., typedef struct string_buffer StringBuffer). Marc > > Collin
