Coding style

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Christopher Key, Sep 17, 2007.

  1. Hello,

    I've some code which I'd like to release in object form along with a
    suitable header. Before I do this however, I'd like to finalise the
    exact names for everything declared in the header, and want to make sure
    that I make the right choice, both with regards readability and
    following existing standards. I was wondering if there are any style
    guides or what peoples opinions are on the following:

    1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
    should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
    existing examples are:

    gd... and FLAC__...

    2) At present, all my function are named along the lines of
    xyz_do_something(). The alternatives seems to be xyz_DoSomething or
    xyz_doSomething, any precedent?

    3) My typdefs are all similarly named, e.g. xyz_my_typdef. Is it
    sensible to capitalise these to distinguish them?

    4) Typedefs involving structs and the structs themselves are identically
    named, e.g.

    typdef struct xyz_a xyz_a;

    // Later

    struct xyz_a {
    ...
    }

    is this sensible?


    Does anyone have any thoughts on the above, or is it all just down to
    personal preference?


    Regards,

    Chris
    Christopher Key, Sep 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Christopher Key said:

    > Hello,
    >
    > I've some code which I'd like to release in object form along with a
    > suitable header. Before I do this however, I'd like to finalise the
    > exact names for everything declared in the header


    [...]

    The scheme you describe makes sense. A three-letter prefix followed by an
    underscore is a sensible idea (avoid is* and to*, though, since following
    these with a letter clashes with the namespace that the C Standard
    reserves for implementations - you neatly sidestep str* and mem* by way of
    your underscore, so don't worry about those).

    > 1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
    > should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
    > existing examples are:
    >
    > gd... and FLAC__...


    Up to you. Keep it easy-to-type, and your users will hate you less.

    >
    > 2) At present, all my function are named along the lines of
    > xyz_do_something(). The alternatives seems to be xyz_DoSomething or
    > xyz_doSomething, any precedent?


    Take your pick. All three variants are common. But if your functions work
    on your own types, why not use the type name (or an abbrev thereof) in the
    function name? For example, if you have a type called xyz_cuddlytoy, you
    could give functions names like xyz_cuddlytoy_squeak, xyz_cuddlytoy_blink,
    and so on.

    > 3) My typdefs are all similarly named, e.g. xyz_my_typdef. Is it
    > sensible to capitalise these to distinguish them?


    Do you mean Mixed Case, or UPPER CASE?

    I used to use UPPER CASE for type names. I don't any more. But it's a
    viable style. Although most C programmers like to think of UPPER CASE as
    being reserved for macros, in practice I never encountered any ambiguities
    in real code that made me wonder what I was looking at - a macro or a type
    synonym. But I guess I just kind of went off the idea.

    Mixed Case is fine too, although - again - it's a style I tried and
    eventually dumped. Nothing wrong with it - I think I just got tired of it,
    really.

    >
    > 4) Typedefs involving structs and the structs themselves are identically
    > named, e.g.
    >
    > typdef struct xyz_a xyz_a;
    >
    > // Later
    >
    > struct xyz_a {
    > ...
    > }
    >
    > is this sensible?


    Yes, but I suggest a trailing underscore on the tag name: typedef struct
    xyz_a_ xyz_a. This disambiguates the tag from the synonym for the benefit
    of Visual Studio users' "jump to definition" feature).

    And separating the typedef from the type definition, as you have done here,
    is eminently sensible in my opinion.

    My opinion on both these points is perhaps non-representative of the
    general clc opinion. Some people just love to type. :)

    > Does anyone have any thoughts on the above, or is it all just down to
    > personal preference?


    As long as you steer clear of the implementation namespace, it's pretty
    much down to you in the end. Pick a sensible style and stick to it
    throughout the library. (By the time you've finished it, you may well be
    sick of it, but you can always do something different for your /next/
    library, although it might annoy those who want to use both.)

    --
    Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    Email: -www. +rjh@
    Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Richard Heathfield, Sep 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Christopher Key

    harsha Guest

    On Sep 17, 5:09 pm, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > Christopher Key said:
    >
    > > Hello,

    >
    > > I've some code which I'd like to release in object form along with a
    > > suitable header. Before I do this however, I'd like to finalise the
    > > exact names for everything declared in the header

    >
    > [...]
    >
    > The scheme you describe makes sense. A three-letter prefix followed by an
    > underscore is a sensible idea (avoid is* and to*, though, since following
    > these with a letter clashes with the namespace that the C Standard
    > reserves for implementations - you neatly sidestep str* and mem* by way of
    > your underscore, so don't worry about those).
    >
    > > 1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
    > > should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
    > > existing examples are:

    >
    > > gd... and FLAC__...

    >
    > Up to you. Keep it easy-to-type, and your users will hate you less.
    >
    >
    >
    > > 2) At present, all my function are named along the lines of
    > > xyz_do_something(). The alternatives seems to be xyz_DoSomething or
    > > xyz_doSomething, any precedent?

    >
    > Take your pick. All three variants are common. But if your functions work
    > on your own types, why not use the type name (or an abbrev thereof) in the
    > function name? For example, if you have a type called xyz_cuddlytoy, you
    > could give functions names like xyz_cuddlytoy_squeak, xyz_cuddlytoy_blink,
    > and so on.
    >
    > > 3) My typdefs are all similarly named, e.g. xyz_my_typdef. Is it
    > > sensible to capitalise these to distinguish them?

    >
    > Do you mean Mixed Case, or UPPER CASE?
    >
    > I used to use UPPER CASE for type names. I don't any more. But it's a
    > viable style. Although most C programmers like to think of UPPER CASE as
    > being reserved for macros, in practice I never encountered any ambiguities
    > in real code that made me wonder what I was looking at - a macro or a type
    > synonym. But I guess I just kind of went off the idea.
    >
    > Mixed Case is fine too, although - again - it's a style I tried and
    > eventually dumped. Nothing wrong with it - I think I just got tired of it,
    > really.
    >
    >
    >
    > > 4) Typedefs involving structs and the structs themselves are identically
    > > named, e.g.

    >
    > > typdef struct xyz_a xyz_a;

    >
    > > // Later

    >
    > > struct xyz_a {
    > > ...
    > > }

    >
    > > is this sensible?

    >
    > Yes, but I suggest a trailing underscore on the tag name: typedef struct
    > xyz_a_ xyz_a. This disambiguates the tag from the synonym for the benefit
    > of Visual Studio users' "jump to definition" feature).
    >
    > And separating the typedef from the type definition, as you have done here,
    > is eminently sensible in my opinion.
    >
    > My opinion on both these points is perhaps non-representative of the
    > general clc opinion. Some people just love to type. :)
    >
    > > Does anyone have any thoughts on the above, or is it all just down to
    > > personal preference?

    >
    > As long as you steer clear of the implementation namespace, it's pretty
    > much down to you in the end. Pick a sensible style and stick to it
    > throughout the library. (By the time you've finished it, you may well be
    > sick of it, but you can always do something different for your /next/
    > library, although it might annoy those who want to use both.)
    >
    > --
    > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > Email: -www. +rjh@
    > Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
    > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999


    HI..
    you might find this useful.
    coding conventions-> http://sajjanharudit.googlepages.com/template.html
    harsha, Sep 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Christopher Key

    harsha Guest

    harsha, Sep 17, 2007
    #4
  5. Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >
    >> 1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
    >> should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
    >> existing examples are:
    >>
    >> gd... and FLAC__...

    >
    > Up to you. Keep it easy-to-type, and your users will hate you less.


    Indeed, lower case followed by an underscore seems a good compromise.
    The underscore allows it to stand out, and I for one find lower case
    rather easier to type.

    >
    >> 2) At present, all my function are named along the lines of
    >> xyz_do_something(). The alternatives seems to be xyz_DoSomething or
    >> xyz_doSomething, any precedent?

    >
    > Take your pick. All three variants are common. But if your functions work
    > on your own types, why not use the type name (or an abbrev thereof) in the
    > function name? For example, if you have a type called xyz_cuddlytoy, you
    > could give functions names like xyz_cuddlytoy_squeak, xyz_cuddlytoy_blink,
    > and so on.


    Again, that's how things are at present, and given your advice, I think
    I'll keep it. I've strictly kept everything named as xyz_cuddlytoy_...
    in anticipation of future expansion, e.g. xyz_actiontoy_squeak!

    >
    >> 3) My typdefs are all similarly named, e.g. xyz_my_typdef. Is it
    >> sensible to capitalise these to distinguish them?

    >
    > Do you mean Mixed Case, or UPPER CASE?
    >
    > I used to use UPPER CASE for type names. I don't any more. But it's a
    > viable style. Although most C programmers like to think of UPPER CASE as
    > being reserved for macros, in practice I never encountered any ambiguities
    > in real code that made me wonder what I was looking at - a macro or a type
    > synonym. But I guess I just kind of went off the idea.
    >
    > Mixed Case is fine too, although - again - it's a style I tried and
    > eventually dumped. Nothing wrong with it - I think I just got tired of it,
    > really.
    >


    I was intending mixed case, and am still not sure. On the one hand, it
    does distinguish types from functions when looking at the code, but
    isn't as easy to type. For people not familiar with the library, it may
    also be a little difficult to remember where to capitalise, e.g.
    xyz_CuddlyToy or xyz_Cuddlytoy.

    >> 4) Typedefs involving structs and the structs themselves are identically
    >> named, e.g.
    >>
    >> typdef struct xyz_a xyz_a;
    >>
    >> // Later
    >>
    >> struct xyz_a {
    >> ...
    >> }
    >>
    >> is this sensible?

    >
    > Yes, but I suggest a trailing underscore on the tag name: typedef struct
    > xyz_a_ xyz_a. This disambiguates the tag from the synonym for the benefit
    > of Visual Studio users' "jump to definition" feature).


    Thanks, will do so. I wasn't aware of any situations where one would
    want to refer to the struct defition itself, but this is certainly one.

    > And separating the typedef from the type definition, as you have done here,
    > is eminently sensible in my opinion.


    It's a nice trick that I came across recently while searching for a way
    to allow circular definitions. It also allows opaque definitions rather
    nicely, as the typedef can go in the public header, and the struct
    itself in a private header.

    >> Does anyone have any thoughts on the above, or is it all just down to
    >> personal preference?

    >
    > As long as you steer clear of the implementation namespace, it's pretty
    > much down to you in the end. Pick a sensible style and stick to it
    > throughout the library. (By the time you've finished it, you may well be
    > sick of it, but you can always do something different for your /next/
    > library, although it might annoy those who want to use both.)
    >


    Thanks for the advice, seems like the general rule is to do what seems
    right and hope others agree. One final point, is there a concise,
    definitive list of names to avoid, e.g. names beginning mem*, names
    ending _t etc?

    Regards,

    Chris
    Christopher Key, Sep 18, 2007
    #5
  6. harsha wrote:
    > On Sep 17, 4:48 pm, Christopher Key <> wrote:
    >> I was wondering if there are any style guides

    >
    > HI..
    > you might find this useful.
    > coding conventions-> http://sajjanharudit.googlepages.com/template.html
    >


    Thanks,

    I've had a read through. I do agree with all the spacing and commenting
    guidelines, although I have to say that camelCase variables and
    functions just don't look right to my eye. It's strange, because I
    prefer that style in perl, although I've absolutely no idea why!

    Regards,

    Chris
    Christopher Key, Sep 18, 2007
    #6
  7. Christopher Key said:

    <snip>

    > Thanks for the advice, seems like the general rule is to do what seems
    > right and hope others agree.


    Pretty much, yes.

    > One final point, is there a concise,


    No. :)

    > definitive list of names to avoid, e.g. names beginning mem*, names
    > ending _t etc?


    Here's a good starting point, although it only covers ISO, not POSIX (e.g.
    it doesn't mention the _t suffix):

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040209031039/http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/c-predef.htm

    --
    Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    Email: -www. +rjh@
    Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Richard Heathfield, Sep 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Christopher Key <> writes:
    > I was intending mixed case, and am still not sure. On the one hand,
    > it does distinguish types from functions when looking at the code, but
    > isn't as easy to type. For people not familiar with the library, it
    > may also be a little difficult to remember where to
    > capitalise, e.g. xyz_CuddlyToy or xyz_Cuddlytoy.


    For user not familiar with the library it may also be a little difficult
    to remeber where to put underscore, e.g. xyz_cuddly_toy or
    xyz_cuddlytoy. ;)

    My personal opinion is as follows: If your names contain underscore
    don't use camel case (ie. xyz_cuddly_toy). If you intend to capitalise
    don't use underscore and do not capitalise the first letter,
    (ie. xyzCuddlyToy). But that's only my opinion.

    >> And separating the typedef from the type definition, as you have
    >> done here, is eminently sensible in my opinion.

    >
    > It's a nice trick that I came across recently while searching for
    > a way to allow circular definitions. It also allows opaque
    > definitions rather nicely, as the typedef can go in the public header,
    > and the struct itself in a private header.


    You can use a full name, ie. "struct foo" instead of typedef, ie.:

    #v+
    struct slist {
    struct slist *next;
    void *data;
    };
    #v-

    also in header files you can put single "struct slist;". In the past
    I have used typedefs but recently I've stopped using them.

    > Thanks for the advice, seems like the general rule is to do what seems
    > right and hope others agree. One final point, is there a concise,
    > definitive list of names to avoid, e.g. names beginning mem*, names
    > ending _t etc?


    If you start all your names with "xyz_" you should be fine, however IIRC
    all identifiers ending with "_t" are reserved by POSIX standard and all
    (or some) identifiers starting with a underscore are reserved by
    C standard. So I would avoid those two.

    --
    Best regards, _ _
    .o. | Liege of Serenly Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
    ..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
    ooo +--<mina86*tlen.pl>---<jid:mina86*chrome.pl>--ooO--(_)--Ooo--
    Michal Nazarewicz, Sep 18, 2007
    #8
  9. On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:48:47 +0100, Christopher Key <>
    wrote:

    > <snip: releasing code> I was wondering if there are any style
    > guides or what peoples opinions are on the following:
    >
    > 1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
    > should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
    > existing examples are:
    >
    > gd... and FLAC__...
    >

    Double underscores are legal in C but not C++. While not all C needs
    to be usable from C++, I personally would avoid introducing even a
    small incompatibility 'cost' for, as I see it, zero benefit. Even
    ignoring that, in many cases (fonts, displays, etc.) underscores run
    together and it's easy to 'mismeasure' visually; this is more a
    problem above 3, but does occur sometimes even for 2.

    <snip other points about casing>
    > Does anyone have any thoughts on the above, or is it all just down to
    > personal preference?
    >

    No comment. All the variants you considered are used, AFAICT
    successfully. I assume you don't have standards set by a formal group
    (e.g. a company) or the community you are releasing to as e.g. perl
    folks do; if so you probably wouldn't have asked. If you have a
    preference, I say go with it. Obviously, whatever you choose, use it
    consistently; given you care(d) enough to ask, I expect you will.

    - formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.net
    David Thompson, Sep 30, 2007
    #9
  10. Christopher Key

    Ian Collins Guest

    David Thompson wrote:
    > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:48:47 +0100, Christopher Key <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> <snip: releasing code> I was wondering if there are any style
    >> guides or what peoples opinions are on the following:
    >>
    >> 1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
    >> should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
    >> existing examples are:
    >>
    >> gd... and FLAC__...
    >>

    > Double underscores are legal in C but not C++.


    Says who?

    --
    Ian Collins.
    Ian Collins, Oct 1, 2007
    #10
  11. Ian Collins said:

    > David Thompson wrote:
    >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:48:47 +0100, Christopher Key <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> <snip: releasing code> I was wondering if there are any style
    >>> guides or what peoples opinions are on the following:
    >>>
    >>> 1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
    >>> should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
    >>> existing examples are:
    >>>
    >>> gd... and FLAC__...
    >>>

    >> Double underscores are legal in C but not C++.

    >
    > Says who?


    Says ISO/IEC 14882:1998, which contains the following paragraph:

    17.4.3.1.2 Global names [lib.global.names]
    1 Certain sets of names and function signatures are always reserved to
    the implementation:
    - Each name that contains a double underscore (_ _) or begins with an
    underscore followed by an upper-case letter (2.11) is reserved to the
    implementation for any use.

    I suggest that it might be wiser to take further discussion of this
    question to comp.lang.c++.

    --
    Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Richard Heathfield, Oct 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Christopher Key

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>, Richard Heathfield
    <> writes
    >Ian Collins said:
    >
    >> David Thompson wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:48:47 +0100, Christopher Key <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> <snip: releasing code> I was wondering if there are any style
    >>>> guides or what peoples opinions are on the following:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
    >>>> should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
    >>>> existing examples are:
    >>>>
    >>>> gd... and FLAC__...
    >>>>
    >>> Double underscores are legal in C but not C++.

    >>
    >> Says who?

    >
    >Says ISO/IEC 14882:1998, which contains the following paragraph:
    >
    >17.4.3.1.2 Global names [lib.global.names]
    >1 Certain sets of names and function signatures are always reserved to
    >the implementation:
    >- Each name that contains a double underscore (_ _) or begins with an
    >underscore followed by an upper-case letter (2.11) is reserved to the
    >implementation for any use.
    >
    >I suggest that it might be wiser to take further discussion of this
    >question to comp.lang.c++.


    Here we go again... as soon as some one mentions C++ you run from it
    like vampires from sun light.

    It will not hurt to discuss the differences between C and C++ here. If
    comp.lan.c++ too the same attitude there would be nowhere to discuss the
    interaction between C and C++.

    It isn't going to hurt anyone to discuss it here.


    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    Chris Hills, Oct 1, 2007
    #12
  13. "Chris Hills" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > In article <>, Richard Heathfield
    > <> writes
    >>Ian Collins said:
    >>
    >>> David Thompson wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:48:47 +0100, Christopher Key <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> <snip: releasing code> I was wondering if there are any style
    >>>>> guides or what peoples opinions are on the following:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_.
    >>>>> How
    >>>>> should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
    >>>>> existing examples are:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> gd... and FLAC__...
    >>>>>
    >>>> Double underscores are legal in C but not C++.
    >>>
    >>> Says who?

    >>
    >>Says ISO/IEC 14882:1998, which contains the following paragraph:
    >>
    >>17.4.3.1.2 Global names [lib.global.names]
    >>1 Certain sets of names and function signatures are always reserved to
    >>the implementation:
    >>- Each name that contains a double underscore (_ _) or begins with an
    >>underscore followed by an upper-case letter (2.11) is reserved to the
    >>implementation for any use.
    >>
    >>I suggest that it might be wiser to take further discussion of this
    >>question to comp.lang.c++.

    >
    > Here we go again... as soon as some one mentions C++ you run from it like
    > vampires from sun light.
    >
    > It will not hurt to discuss the differences between C and C++ here. If
    > comp.lan.c++ too the same attitude there would be nowhere to discuss the
    > interaction between C and C++.
    >
    > It isn't going to hurt anyone to discuss it here.

    There not much point discussing it _just_ here, nor _just_ there. This is a
    good case for crossposting though.

    Bye, Jojo
    Joachim Schmitz, Oct 1, 2007
    #13
  14. Christopher Key

    Ian Collins Guest

    Chris Hills wrote:
    >>
    >> I suggest that it might be wiser to take further discussion of this
    >> question to comp.lang.c++.

    >
    > Here we go again... as soon as some one mentions C++ you run from it
    > like vampires from sun light.
    >

    I got this one wrong, it happens. There isn't anything left to say.


    --
    Ian Collins.
    Ian Collins, Oct 1, 2007
    #14
  15. Chris Hills said:

    > In article <>, Richard Heathfield
    > <> writes


    <snip>

    >>I suggest that it might be wiser to take further discussion of this
    >>question to comp.lang.c++.

    >
    > Here we go again... as soon as some one mentions C++ you run from it
    > like vampires from sun light.


    On the contrary, I answered the question fully, and provided appropriate
    redirection, should the OP wish to check my answer with C++ experts. That
    seems reasonable to me.

    Chris, obviously disagreement and discussion are par for the course in
    comp.lang.c, but recently it seems that your replies to my articles have
    become hostile rather than merely disputational; several have been
    childish; and one has been dishonest. I've tried very hard not to see you
    as a troll, but I can no longer see how I can justify that.

    I'll review the situation in 30 days.

    --
    Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Richard Heathfield, Oct 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Christopher Key

    CBFalconer Guest

    Chris Hills wrote:
    > Richard Heathfield <> writes
    >> Ian Collins said:
    >>> David Thompson wrote:
    >>>

    .... snip ...
    >>>>
    >>>> Double underscores are legal in C but not C++.
    >>>
    >>> Says who?

    >>
    >> Says ISO/IEC 14882:1998, which contains the following paragraph:
    >>
    >> 17.4.3.1.2 Global names [lib.global.names]
    >> 1 Certain sets of names and function signatures are always
    >> reserved to the implementation:
    >> - Each name that contains a double underscore (_ _) or begins
    >> with an underscore followed by an upper-case letter (2.11) is
    >> reserved to the implementation for any use.
    >>
    >> I suggest that it might be wiser to take further discussion of
    >> this question to comp.lang.c++.

    >
    > Here we go again... as soon as some one mentions C++ you run from
    > it like vampires from sun light.
    >
    > It will not hurt to discuss the differences between C and C++
    > here. If comp.lan.c++ too the same attitude there would be nowhere
    > to discuss the interaction between C and C++.
    >
    > It isn't going to hurt anyone to discuss it here.


    For once, I have to agree with you. However such discussions
    should be limited to the language differences and interactions.
    The problem is that any C/C++ crosspost seems to invariably lead to
    thoroughly off-topic material. In this case the matter of interest
    to C'ers is that '__' is illegal in C++. The end.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>


    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    CBFalconer, Oct 1, 2007
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul Baxter

    style for coding latches

    Paul Baxter, Aug 10, 2003, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,130
    Mike Treseler
    Aug 15, 2003
  2. Willem Oosthuizen

    Coding style to prioritize certain inputs

    Willem Oosthuizen, Sep 2, 2003, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    495
    Mike Treseler
    Sep 4, 2003
  3. Analog Guy

    Coding style for CPLD vs FPGA

    Analog Guy, Mar 11, 2005, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,444
    Klaus Falser
    Mar 14, 2005
  4. calmar
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    803
    calmar
    Feb 21, 2006
  5. Ken Varn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    443
    Ken Varn
    Apr 26, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page