On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, TJ wrote:
> I can see the case against other uses of typedef, but I really do not
> see why typedef struct is so bad. seeing 'struct mything_s *foo;'
> doesn't really tell you anything more about foo then 'mything_t *foo;'
> does. If a typedef was something other then a struct then I would want
> it to have an obvious name that said such, eg 'u64'. (I really don't
> like 'size_t')
You can have simple forward declarations for structs:
struct mystruct;
extern void myfunc(struct mystruct *p);
while you need the full struct definition for typedefs:
typedef struct mystruct {
int myfield;
} mytype_t;
extern void myfunc(mytype_t *p);
I.e. more (possibly circular) include dependencies.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
