Code review comment for lp:~smspillaz/compiz-libcompizconfig/ccs-object

> > I know it is common (and may be a project style) but there is no advantage
> to
> > having different names to refer to the same thing in different namespaces.
> > That is not:
> >
> > typedef struct _CCSObject CCSObject;
> >
> > struct _CCSObject
> > {
> > ...
> > };
> >
> > but:
> >
> > typedef struct CCSObject
> > {
> > ...
> > } CCSObject;
>
> Actually, it doesn't seem that client code should be interested in the members
> of [_]CCSObject, so why not a completely opaque type? Vis:
>
> typedef struct CCSObject CCSObject;
>
> in the header. And move the definition to the .c file.

I think the struct can't be opaque because of the way that we actually access the object data (eg, casting it to a CCSObject * and accessing the data in the CCSObject in the first part of the struct).

As for realloc - I agree and had similar concerns, and will change that.