18012, "bradcray", "Should we unify C type naming convention? How?", "2021-07-01T01:02:47Z"
Currently most C types that our modules define for the purposes of interoperability use type names like c_int, c_float, etc. However ssize_t and size_t are outliers. In discussions, we have generally shown interest in unifying these to a single scheme, where the two main proposed courses of action are:
unify on the c_ prefix and change ssize_t and size_t to c_ssize_t and c_size_t for consistency (please vote this option with )
drop the c_ prefix and put these symbols into a module named C such that one would type things like C.int and C.size_t rather than c_int and c_size_t (please vote this option with )
something else?
Arguments in favor of
though c_ is not particularly Chapeltastic, these identifiers are C identifiers, and c_ is a reasonable naming scheme for C identifiers
the use of the somewhat ugly / clunky c_ prefix serves as a disincentive for using these broadly in Chapel code, where the preferred approach would be to keep them constrained to C interop situations, at which point they should be translated to/from Chapel types
it clearly marks them for what they are with no way around it
Arguments in favor of
it is more Chapeltastic in terms of naming by avoiding underscores (apart from ssize_t and size_t, I suppose)
it leverages Chapel's modules' namespaces rather than naming conventions to distinguish these symbols
)
)