Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: What constitutes "standard" C? |
| Date | 2015-03-09 11:21 -0400 |
| Organization | Self |
| Message-ID | <54FDBA6A.5040809@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | <58082093-9db8-4795-a037-764012b7f76b@googlegroups.com> <b9c13cda-e510-4e36-abf3-1f05b3c82dfd@googlegroups.com> <mden58$v4i$1@dont-email.me> |
On 03/07/2015 06:25 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 07/03/15 10:51, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> Linked lists have a little quirk
>> that the struct tag must be used to declare the next pointer - that's
>> very topical.
>
> It isn't just linked lists that need the struct tag, but any
> recursively-defined data structure. And there's no getting away from it.
> You just have to use that struct tag inside the declaration, as follows:.
>
> typedef struct listnode_ listnode;
>
> struct listnode_
> {
> int n;
> listnode *next;
> };
Since the struct tag and the corresponding typedef name occupy different
namespaces, there's no need for them to be different. Because they
describe the same thing, I think it's better to use the same identifier
for both. Otherwise, you're likely to provoke questions about how they
differ.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
What constitutes "standard" C? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-03-06 23:41 -0800
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-03-07 02:57 -0600
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-07 02:51 -0800
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 11:25 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 18:34 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-09 11:21 -0400
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-09 16:08 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-03-07 15:07 -0500
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 11:21 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-07 11:24 -0500
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 17:09 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-07 12:47 -0500
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-07 17:47 -0500
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 15:43 -0800
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-08 01:03 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-07 21:02 -0500
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 18:51 -0800
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 16:02 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-25 08:52 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 15:55 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-25 16:33 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-27 20:14 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-27 17:19 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-27 17:30 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-28 14:27 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-28 20:43 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-04 12:15 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-05 01:13 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-05 13:43 -0400
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-05 20:14 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-05 13:28 -0700
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-05 17:56 -0400
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Lőrinczy Zsigmond <nospam@for.me> - 2015-03-07 14:03 +0100
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 13:30 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-07 14:42 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 08:33 -0800
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-03-07 18:53 -0500
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 16:42 -0800
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 15:49 -0800
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 05:13 -0800
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-07 15:35 +0000
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-03-07 10:49 -0500
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-03-07 10:52 -0500
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-07 11:21 -0500
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 17:10 -0800
Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-09 11:32 -0400
csiph-web