From 3cb55cbfe8e077f361585e2b4160d47049bf7ff1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: monaka Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:42:39 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Updated FAQ (coding style) (markdown) --- FAQ-(coding-style).md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/FAQ-(coding-style).md b/FAQ-(coding-style).md index 87cf168..c972e56 100644 --- a/FAQ-(coding-style).md +++ b/FAQ-(coding-style).md @@ -1,15 +1,15 @@ # Types -## Why don't you add _t suffix to typedef-ed symbols? +## Why don't you add ```_t``` suffix to typedef-ed symbols? -_t suffix is reserved by POSIX. +```_t``` suffix is reserved by POSIX. Even though We don't express to support POSIX, we can't ignore it. -## I found a symbol without mrb_/MRB_ prefix in the header file. +## I found a symbol without ```mrb_```/```MRB_``` prefix in the header file. I'm sorry. It is ill formed. Please report to issue tracking or send pull request. -## My compiler don't support *int*_t. (and/or types may be defined in stdint.h) +## My compiler don't support ```*int*_t```. (and/or types may be defined in stdint.h) It's possible even if your compiler supports C99. But it's necessary to obtain the source code portability.