What style to use when naming types in C

Question

According to this stack overflow answer, the "_t" postfix on type names is reserved in C. When using typedef to create a new opaque type, I'm used to having some sort of indication in the name that this is a type. Normally I would go with something like hashmap_t but now I need something else.

Is there any standard naming scheme for types in C? In other languages, using CapsCase like Hashmap is common, but a lot of C code I see doesn't use upper case at all. CapsCase works fairly nicely with a library prefix too, like XYHashmap.

So is there a common rule or standard for naming types in C?

Answer 1

The Indian Hill style guidelines have some suggestions:

Individual projects will no doubt have their own naming conventions. There are some general rules however.

• Names with leading and trailing underscores are reserved for system purposes and should not be used for any user-created names. Most systems use them for names that the user should not have to know. If you must have your own private identifiers, begin them with a letter or two identifying the package to which they belong.

• #define constants should be in all CAPS.

• Enum constants are Capitalized or in all CAPS

• Function, typedef, and variable names, as well as struct, union, and enum tag names should be in lower case.

• Many macro "functions" are in all CAPS. Some macros (such as getchar and putchar) are in lower case since they may also exist as functions. Lower-case macro names are only acceptable if the macros behave like a function call, that is, they evaluate their parameters exactly once and do not assign values to named parameters. Sometimes it is impossible to write a macro that behaves like a function even though the arguments are evaluated exactly once.

• Avoid names that differ only in case, like foo and Foo. Similarly, avoid foobar and foo_bar. The potential for confusion is considerable.

• Similarly, avoid names that look like each other. On many terminals and printers, 'l', '1' and 'I' look quite similar. A variable named 'l' is particularly bad because it looks so much like the constant '1'.

In general, global names (including enums) should have a common prefix identifying the module that they belong with. Globals may alternatively be grouped in a global structure. Typedeffed names often have "_t" appended to their name.

Avoid names that might conflict with various standard library names. Some systems will include more library code than you want. Also, your program may be extended someday.

Answer 2

Yes, POSIX reserves names ending _t if you include any of the POSIX headers, so you are advised to stay clear of those - in theory. I work on a project that has run afoul of such names two or three times over the last twenty or so years. You can minimize the risk of collision by using a corporate prefix (your company's TLA and an underscore, for example), or by using mixed case names (as well as the _t suffix); all the collisions I've seen have been short and all-lower case (dec_t, loc_t, ...).

Other than the system-provided (and system-reserved) _t suffix, there is no specific widely used convention. One of the mixed-case systems (camelCase or InitialCaps) works well. A systematic prefix works well too - the better libraries tend to be careful about these.

If you do decide to use lower-case and _t suffix, do make sure that you use long enough names and check diligently against the POSIX standard, the primary platforms you work on, and any you think you might work on to avoid unnecessary conflicts. The worst problems come when you release some name example_t to customers and then find there is a conflict on some new platform. Then you have to think about making customers change their code, which they are always reluctant to do. It is better to avoid the problem up front.

Answer 3

C only reserves some uses of a _t suffix. As far as I can tell, this is only current identifiers ending with _t plus any identifier that starts int or uint (7.26.8). However, POSIX may reserve more.

It's a general problem in C, since you have extremely flat namespaces, and there's no silver bullet. If you're familiar with CapCase names and they work well for you, then you should continue to use them. Otherwise, you'll have to evaluate the goals of the current project and see which solution best meets them.

Answer 4

CapsCase is often used for types in C.

For instance, if you look at projects in the GNOME ecosystem (GTK+, GDK, GLib, GObject, Clutter, etc.), you'll see types like GtkButton or ClutterStageWindow. They only use CapsCase for data types; function names and variables are all lower-case with underscore separators - e.g. clutter_actor_get_geometry().

Type naming schemes are like indentation conventions - they generate religious wars with people asserting some sort of moral superiority for their preferred approach. It is certainly preferable to follow the style in existing code, or in related projects (e.g. for me, GNOME over the last few years.)

However, if you're starting from scratch and have no template, there's no hard-and-fast rule. If you're interested in coding efficiently and leaving work at reasonable hour so you can go home and have a beer or whatever, you certainly should pick a style and stick to it for your project, but it matters very little exactly which style you pick.

Answer 5

There are many ideas and opinion on this subject, but there is no one universal standard for naming types. The most important thing is to be consistent. In the absence of coding standards, when maintaining code, resist the urge to use another naming convention. Introducing a new naming convention, even if it's perfect, can add unnecessary complexity.

This is actually a great topic to raise when interviewing people. I've never come across a good programmer that didn't have an opinion on this. No opinion or no passion in the answer indicates that the person isn't an experienced programmer.