Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Am I being too C++ like? |
| Date | 2012-01-20 09:08 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jfbsg5$c2b$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <31492b98-d71f-4a77-95f3-c150099f9b0d@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com><slrnjhg375.1ls.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid><jf9c73$akt$1@dont-email.me> <lnfwfbxfcx.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <jfbr4g$47j$1@dont-email.me> |
On 1/20/2012 8:44 AM, BartC wrote:
> "Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message
> news:lnfwfbxfcx.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
>> "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> "Jorgen Grahn" <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote in message
>
>>>> I'd skip the typedef -- if something is a struct, I want to see
>>>> that immediately. People typedef the weirdest things, so I feel I
>>>> cannot assume such a name is a struct, and not a pointer or something.
>>>
>>> Couldn't you make exactly the same argument for *anything* defined with
>>> typedef?
>>
>> Not quite.
>>
>> A typedef for a struct type just creates a new name (like "foo") for
>> something that already has a name (like "struct foo"). It typically
>> provides no new information, nor does it hide information that
>> should be hidden;
>
> But if I create a new typedef T, and then declare:
>
> T a;
>
> I can't see at a glance whether T is a number, struct, and anything
> else. That seemed to be the point of JG's remark. In this case it *does*
> hide some information.
Not very effectively, since you need to rediscover at least
some of the "hidden" information before you can use `a'.
a = 42; // legal?
*a |= 42; // legal?
a.fizz = 42; // legal?
a->buzz = 42; // legal?
puts(a); // legal?
longjmp(a, 42); // legal?
a(42); // legal?
As a matter of personal taste I rather like typedef aliases
for struct types (and less often, union types), and I intensely
dislike them for data pointer types (but sometimes use them for
function pointers). For scalar types, I use typedef not so much
for opacity but for portability, using <limits.h> and #if to find
a type with suitable range and publishing the result as a typedef
name. But these are just my preferences, not binding on anyone
and not enshrined in a style standard.
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Am I being too C++ like? nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2012-01-18 13:53 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-01-18 18:50 -0500
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-01-19 04:13 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-01-19 09:09 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-01-18 21:42 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-19 12:30 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-01-19 15:17 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-19 18:44 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-01-20 13:44 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-01-20 09:08 -0500
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-01-20 07:58 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-20 11:25 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Kleuske <kleuske@nowhere.net> - 2012-01-20 20:17 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-21 09:23 +1300
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Kleuske <kleuske@nowhere.net> - 2012-01-20 22:00 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-01-20 16:28 -0600
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-21 11:43 +1300
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-01-20 18:02 -0500
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-20 16:12 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-21 00:13 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-01-20 17:37 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-20 22:25 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-01-21 16:07 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Bill Reid <hormelfree@gmail.com> - 2012-01-23 17:26 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-21 18:00 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-21 21:25 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-11 23:46 +0200
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-11 22:56 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-22 02:34 +0200
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-01-21 22:42 +0100
Re: Am I being too C++ like? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-21 21:22 -0500
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-01-22 14:56 +0100
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-22 10:29 +1300
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Kleuske <kleuske@nowhere.net> - 2012-01-21 11:36 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-22 12:13 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Kleuske <kleuske@nowhere.net> - 2012-01-22 12:39 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-23 23:45 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Kleuske <kleuske@nowhere.net> - 2012-01-24 16:54 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-22 04:43 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-22 15:29 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-21 11:58 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-21 21:32 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-01-19 04:23 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-19 14:39 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-22 05:14 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-23 23:42 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-19 14:51 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-01-19 23:04 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-20 16:03 +1300
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-01-20 06:01 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-21 08:03 +1300
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-01-21 12:31 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-22 10:18 +1300
Re: Am I being too C++ like? cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2012-01-20 05:22 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Marco <prenom_nomus@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-21 07:29 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-24 12:13 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-31 14:32 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 15:32 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 19:46 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-01-31 23:54 -0500
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 22:24 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-31 23:28 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-01 11:23 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-01 15:01 -0600
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-01 14:09 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-01 14:44 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 17:36 -0500
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-08 12:45 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-03-08 21:41 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-09 17:42 +1300
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-03-09 08:12 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-03-09 12:01 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-03-08 14:19 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-09 13:32 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-03-09 04:18 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-03-09 13:04 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-03-10 01:02 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-03-10 07:59 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-10 21:17 +1300
Re: Am I being too C++ like? nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-03-10 02:39 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-09 13:51 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-03-10 02:54 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-10 12:27 +1300
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 07:41 +0000
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-01 11:24 -0800
Re: Am I being too C++ like? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-01 21:55 +0000
csiph-web