Re: "_t" type names, and other coding style alternatives

[Simon Josefsson]

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <address@hidden> writes:

> On 10/09/2012 08:58 PM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>
>
>>      There isn't a formal standard reserving those, but there's a
>>      convention of using _p for “predicates” (both boolean variables,
>>      like done_p; and boolean functions, like writable_p (fp).)
>>      Thus, it may be better to use _ptr or _pt instead.
>
>
> Didn't like any of those. I just dropped the _t.

I also prefer just dropping any suffix.

Btw, is the "compatibility types" section really needed?  The reason for
the 3.0 branch was that we wanted to drop old compatibility code... it
seems bad to introduce _new_ compatibility code now.  I think at least
the 'node_asn' and 'node_data_struct' types should be dropped since
there is a namespace violation.

Thinking about this, I'm not sure it is worth the effort to move from
'asn1_node_t' to 'asn1_node'.  It will require a large effort for
everyone who uses libtasn1 to adapt, and for purely a cosmetic gain.

/Simon