Re: const char* typedefs

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Paige DePol once stated:
> 
> However, as I was thinking about it during this conversation I also realised
> that whenever I see "const char*" I just think "C String". A shorter name is
> always nicer, and "ccstr" also concisely summarises the object to me.

  Okay, so "ccstr" is "typdedef char const *ccstr" [1] but does that imply
that "cstr" is "typedef char *cstr"?  If so, then there's only a single
character difference between two different types so typos might be hard to
decern (maybe---it may be that the compiler might catch instances of ccstr
when a cstr was meant, but not so much the other way around).

  My only other argument against it is that "char *" is *so* idiomatic for a
"string" that it seems silly to hide it just to save some typing [7].

  -spc (Who realizes that "const char *" is more idiomatic than 
	"char const *" but does the later anyway ... )

[1]	Why "char const" and not "const char"?  Because "const" actually
	binds to the right (except when it's at the leftmost position).  I
	was fond of doing stuff like:

		const char *const p;

	which defines p as a constant pointer to a constant character, but
	it doesn't read that way.  Instead:

		char const *const p;

	*does* read that way.  I use that style mostly for global variables,
	such as this one [2]:

		extern void (*const c_conversion)(FILE *const restrict,FILE *const restrict);

	which is a constant pointer to a function, said function takes two
	FILE *s which are themselves constant [3] and guarenteed not to
	point to the same thing [4].  Sometimes, globals are unavoidable,
	but I try to make them read-only as much as possible [6].
	
[2]	https://github.com/spc476/mod_blog/blob/6a92de05304987ae9d37d9e833a53523883a555d/src/globals.h#L69

[3]	My thought when I wrote that at the time was to show that the
	parameters were *not* arrays [5].  My thinking these days is to show
	array parameters via '[]' which is more explicit in intent
	(exception being C strings, which are technically arrays).

[4]	That's what "restrict" is for.

[5]	Because C makes it too easy to conflate pointers with arrays.

[6]	Yes, they're defined in a single file:

	https://github.com/spc476/mod_blog/blob/6a92de05304987ae9d37d9e833a53523883a555d/src/globals.c

	and there, they aren't const.  I have to set them somewhere.  It's
	only to the rest of the code that they are defined as constant.  It
	makes it a bit easier to reason about the code.  There are a few
	globals left that aren't "const" and I'm still trying to work on
	those.

[7]	We read code more than write it.  Spend the extra few seconds
	writing it.