MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190125085755.5290-1-cristianontivero@gmail.com> <U7ts9Yh_Z3XOiaWl6AhxSN67-FxIMtbaYeTlvyyyw5DQAS4ikfnS4TYaWhLzU3L__Qchoi8zRWD-ikFm8bmHtmYtoDUqVmfVKpSKHCpQSn0=@emersion.fr>
In-Reply-To: <U7ts9Yh_Z3XOiaWl6AhxSN67-FxIMtbaYeTlvyyyw5DQAS4ikfnS4TYaWhLzU3L__Qchoi8zRWD-ikFm8bmHtmYtoDUqVmfVKpSKHCpQSn0=@emersion.fr>
From: Cristian Ontivero <cristianontivero@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 22:24:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CALvFPysnBQn=1ADtJHnXgj-n-pWGBS631smtWH=_o_j7zeAprw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Parse arithmetic expressions with shifts
To: Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>
Cc: "~emersion/mrsh-dev@lists.sr.ht" <~emersion/mrsh-dev@lists.sr.ht>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> Is there anything that prevents this from being merged?

Not really, as far as I could test, it all works, but I wanted to get
your opinion on it first.

> Nitpick: the convention I've used so far is to use the `_func` prefix
> for function types.

My bad, I realized after sending the patch. But now that you mention it, I had
something I wanted to bring up for discussion: the suffix currently used is
`func_t`, but POSIX reserves the `_t` suffix (for a discussion, see
for instance:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/231807/3599459 ). Ultimately, I'll follow whatever
naming convention you see fit, but I wanted to know if you had some particular
reason for disregarding that.