Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: April 2005:
[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#11282) [C++] typedef / struct member conflict in clien
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#11282) [C++] typedef / struct member conflict in clien

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: fbriere@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#11282) [C++] typedef / struct member conflict in client/climisc.h
From: "Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:34:47 -0700
Reply-to: bugs@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=11282 >

> [fbriere@xxxxxxxxxxx - Fri Dec 17 00:50:35 2004]:
> 
> [ I'm moving this thread to its appropriate ticket. ]
> 
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:07:41PM -0800, Vasco Alexandre da Silva
> Costa wrote:
> > Just do as Jason suggested. Rename the 'cid' type declaration to
> > something else. Be it 'cid_type', 'Build_Type_id', 'Compound_id',
> etc. I
> 
> As I pointed out in #11282, there's somewhat like 200 occurences of
> cid,
> either as a typedef, a struct member, a variable, or part of a
> function
> name.  Imagine something like:
> 
>       cid cid = next_cid(item->cid)
> 
> Given that, is it still okay if I alter only the typedef?  With
> cid_type
> or cid_t, it probably wouldn't matter much, but Jason argued that
> "cid"
> was a dumb name in the first place (can't argue with that) and
> advocated
> Build_type_id.  Would that be okay?
> 
> Basically, I'm quite willing to sift through each occurence and rename
> as I'm told -- I just want to make sure that I won't fuck things up.

Build_type_id or build_type_id should be fine.

-jason




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]
  • [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#11282) [C++] typedef / struct member conflict in client/climisc.h, Jason Short <=