Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] system_data_types.7: Add 'void *'

[Alejandro Colomar]

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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2020-10-02 15:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >   > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> >   > <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   >>
> >   >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:49, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >   >>>
> >   >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 09:28, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
> > <gcc@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.