Hello Yugo-san,
>> I'm wondering whether we could use "vars" instead of "variables" as a
>> struct field name and function parameter name, so that is is shorter and
>> more distinct from the type name "Variables". What do you think?
>
> The struct "Variables" has a field named "vars" which is an array of
> "Variable" type. I guess this is a reason why "variables" is used instead
> of "vars" as a name of "Variables" type variable so that we could know
> a variable's type is Variable or Variables. Also, in order to refer to
> the field, we would use
>
> vars->vars[vars->nvars]
>
> and there are nested "vars". Could this make a codereader confused?
Hmmm… Probably. Let's keep "variables" then.
--
Fabien.
