Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] system_data_types.7: Add 'void *' | From | Alejandro Colomar <> | Date | Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:51:17 +0200 |
| |
Hi Jonathan,
On 2020-10-02 15:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 14:20, Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2020-10-02 15:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) >> > <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:49, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 09:28, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc >> <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> >>>> However, it might be good that someone starts a page called >> >>>> 'type_qualifiers(7)' or something like that. >> >>> >> >>> Who is this for? Who is trying to learn C from man pages? Should >> >>> somebody stop them? >> >> >> >> Yes, I think so. To add context, Alex has been doing a lot of work to >> >> build up the new system_data_types(7) page [1], which I think is >> >> especially useful for the POSIX system data types that are used with >> >> various APIs. >> > >> > It's definitely useful for types like struct siginfo_t and struct >> > timeval, which aren't in C. >> >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> But then the line is a bit diffuse. >> Would you document 'ssize_t' and not 'size_t'? > > Yes. My documentation for ssize_t would mention size_t, refer to the C > standard, and not define it. > >> Would you not document intN_t types? >> Would you document stdint types, including 'intptr_t', and not 'void *'? > > I would document neither. > > I can see some small value in documenting size_t and the stdint types, > as they are technically defined by the libc headers. But documenting > void* seems very silly. It's one of the most fundamental built-in > parts of the C language, not an interface provided by the system. > >> I guess the basic types (int, long, ...) can be left out for now, > > I should hope so! > >> and apart from 'int' those rarely are the most appropriate types >> for most uses. >> But other than that, I would document all of the types. >> And even... when all of the other types are documented, >> it will be only a little extra effort to document those, >> so in the future I might consider that. > > [insert Jurassic Park meme "Your scientists were so preoccupied with > whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." > ] > > I don't see value in bloating the man-pages with information nobody > will ever use, and which doesn't (IMHO) belong there anyway. We seem > to fundamentally disagree about what the man pages are for. I don't > think they are supposed to teach C programming from scratch.
Agree in part. I'll try to think about it again.
In the meantime, I trust Michael to tell me when something is way off :)
Thanks, really!
Alex
> > >> But yes, priority should probably go to Linux/POSIX-only types.
| |