reserved identifier violation about bpfilter HOT 6 CLOSED

Hi @elfring

Thanks for your concern. I try to stick to the _bf_ prefix for the symbols with static linkage, so I don't expect this to be a real concern. This rule is useful to quickly distinguish static symbols in a file, while having a common prefix with low chances to introduce name clashes.

However, you can see that this rule has been loosely followed until recently, and you're welcome to submit a PR if you want to!

from bpfilter.

💭 Would you become interested to use a development tool like “clang-tidy” for corresponding source code adjustments?

from bpfilter.

clang-tidy is used, but it doesn't define the rules for the project to follow. I define the rules, and for this specific case (reserved identifiers), I've explained the rational in my message above.

from bpfilter.

💭 How do you think about to avoid that this software depends on undefined behaviour?

from bpfilter.

I've answered in good faith so far, even though your track record of public contribution doesn't play in your favor. I've explained the reasoning for prefixing symbols with _bf_. I won't allow this discussion to waste my time further, because I think you're acting in bad faith.

Now, if you come up with a real world use case were bpfilter is causing symbols clash, you're free to create a PR.

from bpfilter.

💭 I guess that you can get a more positive impression for my contribution spectrum.

🔮 I hope that development interests can grow also for compliance with the rules of the programming language “C”.

from bpfilter.