move adt_tree.c (virtual registry tree) to new talloc()
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Sat Sep 3 16:30:13 GMT 2005
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 11:10:15AM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> I see I am going to loose this coding style debate.
> I actually prefer to use typedef's for opaque data
> structures. Why do you need to know is a structure?
The way I see it is the following: Everything that is an opaque data type is a
structure. If an implementation really wants to make this opaque, use a
forward reference without data fields. This way you can only deal with the
structure as a pointer, but that might be acceptable.
As we have talloc destructors, a convention might be to simply talloc_free
such an abstract data type and have the module clean up itself.
> Unless someone has a technical reason to choose
> one over the other, then IO guess I'll remain an
> infidel in the eyes of the 'struct' religion :-)
Tridge once mentioned better syntax highlighting in editors, but I think this
hardly qualifies as a technical reason. I think it really comes down to
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20050903/9be40f74/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical