3 ms·

UPDATE regarding "_t" suffix: POSIX reserves "_t" suffix everywhere (not just for identifiers beginning with "int"/"uint" from <stdint.h>); references: https:/

by hddqsb 4y ago

UPDATE regarding "_t" suffix: POSIX reserves "_t" suffix everywhere (not just for identifiers beginning with "int"/"uint" from <stdint.h>); references: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Reserved-Names.html https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Reserved-..., https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V.... So I actually stand by my original comment that the convention of using "_t" suffix shouldn't be recommended. (It's just that the reasoning is for conformance with POSIX rather than with ISO C.)

Koshkin 4y ago
Well, semantically, "size_t" makes sense to me ("the type of a size variable"), while "uint_t" does not ("the type of a uint variable"), because "uint" is already a type, obviously - just like "int".