Re: complex number API

[Gerard Jungman <jungman@nnn.lanl.gov>]

Eleftherios Gkioulekas wrote:
> >
> >One shortcoming I see is that gsl_complex_t is longer.
> >
> 
> It is very trivial to do
> 
> #define complex_t gsl_complex_t
> 
> to cut down some typing, when you know that there will be no conflict.

Now, there is reasonable response. I like to emphasize the point
by saying that, when people start talking about things being too
long to type, I get very worried. I hope Mark was joking.


The only qualm I have about '_t' is that (for whatever perverse reason),
I generally associate it with a "simple" type, the canonical examples
being things like size_t, off_t, etc., which exist as abstractions over
built-in types, essentially for platform-independence. Maybe there
should be another convention for non-simple types (structs), which
makes it clear that they are objects. Nitpicking, I know.
Does this ever bother anybody else?


-- 
G. Jungman