Hi,
It was pointed out to me on IRC that I went into too much details/patches and muddied the original question, so I propose it again more simply:
"Do you agree it would be better for Geany to use standard C types as opposed to GLib types which are typedef'd to the exact same thing?" (ex. gint->int, glong->long, gchar->char etc.)
Sorry for any noise, Matthew Brush
On 13-08-18 01:32 AM, Matthew Brush wrote:
On 13-08-18 12:21 AM, Matthew Brush wrote:
Hi,
I just want to throw this out there since I already made it:
http://pastebin.geany.org/7YHWE/
It's the diff of a branch which replaces every single redundant G* type with its standard C counterpart. I have a branch with commits for each type, starting from the only one that changed (WRT to recent C99 discussions), but I just pasted here a combination patch of removing all redundantly-named, non-standard C types.
Of note is:
- I left gboolean where it would break a function signature with respect
to GCC warnings.
- I left all guchar, gushort, guint, gulong, etc types, because, lets be
honest, it's just nicer to type.
- gpointer (and gconstpointer) was special because it masked the pointer
- behind its typedef and so broke lines with multiple gpointer
declarations on the same line (easily fixable since there's no such thing as void type in C).
- I think patch includes changes to stdint types (ex. gint16, guint32)
but I think we shouldn't change these as GLib assures them and the C99 standard does not in theory (and is not many in use).
I don't mean to apply this patch directly, just to spur discussion about whether Geany should be using standard C types or pointlessly typedeff'd G* types where there is an existing and cross-platform standard type.
The one big point I can see against is; "We already do like that", so there's no point in repeating it, it's totally valid and avoids (potentially, although I'm pretty sure not) breaking in obscure ways some mysterious code, but since I made the patch anyways, I'd thought I'd post it for comments. If you see some fundamental issue, of course feel free to point out.
I mostly want to solicit feedback on this topic in general rather than bikeshed my patch specifically as pasted.
P.S. I'll not proceed further on this without more input from Geany developers and community.
Just to add some relevant links:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-01/msg03474.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-01/msg03397.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OszwDROZX4oJ:https://li...
http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Booleans http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l64BmXlu-doJ:permalink....
Cheers, Matthew Brush _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel