Re: Fwd: Re: [AD] Custom packfiles

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dustin Dettmer wrote:

> > Peter Wang wrote:
> > I only put in the prefix because getc and putc from
> > stdio.h can be 
> > macros and cause problems (which they did).  It's
> > also recommended 
> > practice in some standard to put prefixes on
> > structure member names, for 
> > exactly this reason (e.g. that's why they have
> > struct timeval { tv_sec, 
> > tv_usec }, and struct dirent { d_name, d_type },
> > etc.) -- not that 
> > anybody can be bothered most of the time.
> >    
>
> Is Allegro C99?  If I understand the overloading
> problem correctly, it could potientialy be solved via
> variable macro arguments.  Although I may not be
> understand the problem correctly, could you elaborate
> on it?
>  

The part you quoted is about the names of fields in structs.  The 
following code has a problem:

struct PACKFILE_VTABLE {
   int (*getc)(PACKFILE *);
};

The problem is that stdio.h may have:

   #define getc(f)    ...

So you run into trouble when you try to write:

   x = vtable->getc(f);

> Anyway, those are my thoughts and reasons for
> prefering function overloading to cluttering up their names.
>  

It's not a choice we have in C, and AFAIK C99 doesn't change that.

Peter