I guess I used function names beginning with underscore as it didn’t occur to me that it might be un-idiomatic. The intention was to make clear to myself that those functions are private and meant to be only used only in that file. But thanks a lot for pointing it out!
replyAbout the second paragraph, first of all, thank you for the suggestions. Can I ask you to elaborate a little on the reasons for your proposals? For instance, even if redundant in some cases, I thought to myself it couldn’t be a bad thing to check for null pointers (though I could improve the error handling itself).
In C, you would typically rely much more on tooling to find bugs (but there are different styles and opinions). Checking for null is not bad, but does not usually add anything. If you de-reference a null pointer, you get a segmentation fault (which is safe) and a debugger will give a nice backtrace. So why catch this by writing additional code if the right tool will give you this automatically? A sanitizer could also add such tests automatically.
replyFor a similar reason, it makes sense to use signed integers. A signed overflow sanitizer will find the overflow bugs or safely terminate the program. Finding unsigned wraparound bugs is much harder.
Names beginning with double underbar (or single underbar + capital letter) are reserved. Single underbar + lowercase is not. C23 §6.4.2.1.
replyAlso reserved as identifier with file scope, just not for "any use". In any case, the program used underbar + capital letter.
replyAh, I hadn't noticed _SimpleSetNode.
replyThis leaves out part of the clause.
reply All identifiers that begin with an underscore are reserved for use as identifiers with file scope in both the ordinary and tag name spaces.
You're right, and I guess I've been breaking that rule for a while. What's the purpose there? The double-underbar and underbar-capital rules seem to be allowing for non-conflicting introduction of keywords. Is the single-underbar rule to protect standard library headers or something?
reply