[Tinyos-devel] Safe TinyOS pointer annotations

[Octav Chipara]

Could the same thing be realized by defining special data types? I'm
thinking that all this could be handled in the same way we handle
network types. It could also make thinks look more like standard c and
solve the incompatibility problem between different versions of nesc.

Thanks,
-- Octav

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Philip Levis <pal at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>  On Feb 23, 2008, at 11:40 AM, John Regehr wrote:
>
>  >> I'd recommend @one_or_null instead of @one_n - likewise for
>  >> @count_n - since the latter form seems to suggest that there is
>  >> some parameter 'n' involved.
>  >
>  > Yeah I agree that @one_or_null is clearer and I'm fine with it.
>  > The only drawback is that the verbosity could get old (but maybe it
>  > will encourage the design of null-pointer-free interfaces, which
>  > seem to be easier to think about :).
>  >
>  > Anyone else?
>  >
>
>  How about "_nok" for "Null OK"? Or even "_null"?
>
>  I agree that _n is confusing, but also that "_null_ok" seems
>  unnecessarily long.
>
>  Phil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Tinyos-devel mailing list
>  Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
>  https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
>