Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 23:15:31 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Style fixups for proc.h Message-ID: <200302012315.h11NFVaX028348@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:04:32 PST." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0302011502090.55342-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer writes: > I don't know about the protection with a '_'. > > It's not standard and usually the name matches that used in the actual > function. When the prototype parameter name matches a local variable, the C compiler (and lint) whine about clashes between names in local/global namespace. 2 ways to fix this are to "protect" the prototype argument names with the "_", or to remove the argument name altogether. proc.h has no clear guidance, in that recent commits don't stick to the established style of the file. Some newish prototypes have a mixture of named/unnamed args in the same function. While I was making all prototypes' args named, I protected them. I'd like to fix the warnings, and I'd like the file to be consistent WRT argument naming. > It's certainly not part of style(9) that I've ever noticed > and it's generally noy done that way.. is there a move to do this on all > the other files? There is a move to fix lint(1) warnings. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302012315.h11NFVaX028348>