Closed adriweb closed 1 year ago
I think the underscore is fine - it helps avoid conflict with user structs
Alright.
I don't know what's up with the CI though, it builds fine for me and I'm not sure it's related since it's fasmg complaining. Can someone else check just in case?
I'm most familiar with the convention typedef struct foo foo_t
. If we didn't want that, I'd probably alternatively propose typedef struct foo_t foo_t
.
Oh I forgot that it was even possible to have both the struct name and the typedef be the same. Seems like it would be even better then?
Became "necessary" for the lua binding thing that didn't like anonymous structs.
I'm not sure which naming convention we should use, though, and maybe
_
as prefix isn't great, but it's been used in some places before already so I used that too. We could also just usethe_type_name
for the struct name, and the typedef would still bethe_type_name_t
?