Regarding this: https://github.com/fox-it/dissect.cstruct/pull/72/files#r1995848713
Because we are more "correct" now when it comes to the type names, some repr output has become a bit uglier. We can "patch this up" in the parser when we learn that such a structure is part of a named field, but that complicates things again when generating a stub.
For that PR we chose to go for the more correct, easier to deal with naming for stub generation and make it prettier later.
Regarding this: https://github.com/fox-it/dissect.cstruct/pull/72/files#r1995848713
Because we are more "correct" now when it comes to the type names, some
reproutput has become a bit uglier. We can "patch this up" in the parser when we learn that such a structure is part of a named field, but that complicates things again when generating a stub.For that PR we chose to go for the more correct, easier to deal with naming for stub generation and make it prettier later.