On 2005-02-02, Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nick Patavalis wrote: > >> In what sense is the "struct bar" type defined? Because if "struct >> bar" is not defined, then how can "struct bar *" be defined? Is it ok >> to to have pointer-type whose base type is not (or incompletely) >> defined? > > This technique is used rather often to hide structure definitions from > consumers of that structure. > This is very neat indeed! I have not seen it used, but it is absolutely beautiful! > > Simple, and works very well. All users of foo.h know that "struct foo" > exists, and can store/retrieve pointers to one, and have functions to > manipulate one. They just can't peek inside one. > Of define a "foo" structure :-( which removes something from the beauty of the concept, but, well, you can't have it all, can you? /npat
