reserved identifier violation

[elfring]

I would like to point out that identifiers like "_BLITBUFFER_H" and "_PDF_INPUT_H" do not fit to the expected naming convention of the C language standard.
Would you like to adjust your selection for unique names?

[tigran123]

Thanks for letting us know. What is good enough for stdio.h is good enough for KPV, I think.

Btw, ironically, the example (from the URL you posted) of "compliant code" is itself using a "non-compliant" header stddef.h which has this type of guard against double-inclusion:

#ifndef _STDDEF_H
#define _STDDEF_H

At least on half a dozen of commercial Unix versions that I cared to check...

[hwhw]

In fact, I never bothered to look into these matters, though I'm always
interested in respecting standards.
If I get it right, we as application developers should keep away from
underscore-prefixed defines, since they are reserved. That might very well
not apply to stddef.h, since it is toolchain-delivered. The risk in
question is to clash with such pre-defined headers.

I'd be fine with a rename. I probably just mimicked what I found elsewhere
in this case. I've got to admit that I wrote Linux kernel drivers,
applications and libraries using C, but am completely self-taught and there
are probably bits and pieces missing in my knowledge that I've assembled so
far :-)

[tigran123]

Of course what @elfring said is absolutely true and right, but it is also ultra-super-maxi-pedantic :)

[hwhw]

Maybe it's a trace of being grown up in Germany, but I have a soft spot for
pedantic approaches :-)
(Just joking, don't want to turn this into a stereotypes thing)