Fine, but at least fix this bug:
.. (sizeof *f->buf) ..
Or ... sizeof(*f->buf)? I’d forgotten that sizeof even allows dropping the parens, but isn’t that asking for trouble? “sizeof a <op> b” is sometimes parsed as “sizeof(a) <op> b” and sometimes as “sizeof(a <op> b) depending on the precedence of operator <op>. Is there any downside to always using parens and writing sizeof() like a function call?
Sure, many people like that style, I don't.
But no, I don't think there are any downsides, but there is this notion that things should look like what they are, which is popular in C.
With parens, I would suggest spaces to make it
sizeof (*f->buf)
This example I think needs editing:
it's described as a way to "fill the complete framebuffer with a solid colour", but 'rgb' is shown in the previous snipped to be 'uint32_t'. That is not how 'memset()' [1] works, it will only use the least significant 8 bits of the 'int'-typed value argument. So it would use whatever blue bits where in 'rgb', only.For clearing (all zero) it's usable, and then I would recommend writing it as:
this both fixes the typo ("sizeoof" sounds like a C lecturer being punched in the guts), and avoids duplicating the type and instead inferring it from the actual object, which is more DRY and a style I've been advocating for ... years.[1]: https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/memset.3.html