🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41ki32$p4t@deyke3.fc.hp.com>, rainer@deyke3.fc.hp.com says...
>
>Phil Martin u (mart4678@mach1.wlu.ca) wrote:
>: Rainer Deyke (rainer@deyke3.fc.hp.com) wrote:
>: : typedefs are for idiots.
>
>: Forgive me if this is a silly (or "idiotic) question, but what's wrong
>: with typedefs? I prefer how my code looks when I use them, are they 
>: considered bad style, do they slow down the program, or is Mr. Deyke just
>: overstating a personal preference?
>
>Well, I prefer explicit types because they are so much clearer.  I
>consider typedefs to be extremely bad style, but I suppose it is a
>matter of personal preference.  The point I was making is that typedefs
>aren't necessary in C any more than in C++.  Sorry if I offended you.

"So much clearer"? Really? Which of these two is easier to read?

typedef void (*sigfunc)(int);
sigfunc signal(int sig, sigfunc func);

or

void (*signal(int sig, void (*func)(int)))(int);

I am not an idiot, and I will always use the first form rather than the 
second. Good code is written clearly, not cleverly.