[Geany-Devel] Geany using standard types

[Matthew Brush]

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://lists.launchpad.net/unity-dev/msg00231.html+gboolean+vs+bool&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
>
> http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Booleans
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l64BmXlu-doJ:permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.svn/584036+use+standard+types+glibtypes&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
>
>
> Cheers,
> Matthew Brush
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.geany.org
> https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel