On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Oh. Can't C++ handle types as variable names? That's pretty weak tbh.
Nop it cannot.
> I'll make a note of it. In the future, the object types will be either
> "struct " or "_object". We save no typing for either case,
> and abbreviating "_object" to "_obj" seems a bit silly to me. We'll
> probably go with "struct host". That will also make it possible to
> name instances of the structs to the type they're referring to, such
> that
>
> =C2=A0struct host *host;
>
> works well. Does this also work nicely with C++, or do we have to play
> prefix/suffix games?
>
It does not work, because the struct keyword becomes optional when
declaring a variable such as
struct host { /* struct content */ };
host h;
is perfectly valid C++.
Wouldn't the _t suffix be appropriate (ie. host_t, service_t) ? It is
a widely used suffix for type names.
Best regards,
--=20
Matthieu KERMAGORET | D=C3=A9veloppeur
[email protected]
MERETHIS est =C3=A9diteur du logiciel Centreon.
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]