As Greg Hewgill said, the typedef means you no longer have to write struct all over the place. That not only saves keystrokes, it also can make the code cleaner since it provides a smidgen more abstraction.
Stuff like
typedef struct {
int x, y;
} Point;
Point point_new(int x, int y)
{
Point a;
a.x = x;
a.y = y;
return a;
}
becomes cleaner when you don't need to see the "struct" keyword all over the place, it looks more as if there really is a type called "Point" in your language. Which, after the typedef, is the case I guess.
Also note that while your example (and mine) omitted naming the struct itself, actually naming it is also useful for when you want to provide an opaque type. Then you'd have code like this in the header, for instance:
typedef struct Point Point;
Point * point_new(int x, int y);
and then provide the struct definition in the implementation file:
struct Point
{
int x, y;
};
Point * point_new(int x, int y)
{
Point *p;
if((p = malloc(sizeof *p)) != NULL)
{
p->x = x;
p->y = y;
}
return p;
}
In this latter case, you cannot return the Point by value, since its definition is hidden from users of the header file. This is a technique used widely in GTK+, for instance.
UPDATE Note that there are also highly-regarded C projects where this use of typedef to hide struct is considered a bad idea, the Linux kernel is probably the most well-known such project. See Chapter 5 of The Linux Kernel CodingStyle document for Linus' angry words. :) My point is that the "should" in the question is perhaps not set in stone, after all.
As Greg Hewgill said, the typedef means you no longer have to write struct all over the place. That not only saves keystrokes, it also can make the code cleaner since it provides a smidgen more abstraction.
Stuff like
typedef struct {
int x, y;
} Point;
Point point_new(int x, int y)
{
Point a;
a.x = x;
a.y = y;
return a;
}
becomes cleaner when you don't need to see the "struct" keyword all over the place, it looks more as if there really is a type called "Point" in your language. Which, after the typedef, is the case I guess.
Also note that while your example (and mine) omitted naming the struct itself, actually naming it is also useful for when you want to provide an opaque type. Then you'd have code like this in the header, for instance:
typedef struct Point Point;
Point * point_new(int x, int y);
and then provide the struct definition in the implementation file:
struct Point
{
int x, y;
};
Point * point_new(int x, int y)
{
Point *p;
if((p = malloc(sizeof *p)) != NULL)
{
p->x = x;
p->y = y;
}
return p;
}
In this latter case, you cannot return the Point by value, since its definition is hidden from users of the header file. This is a technique used widely in GTK+, for instance.
UPDATE Note that there are also highly-regarded C projects where this use of typedef to hide struct is considered a bad idea, the Linux kernel is probably the most well-known such project. See Chapter 5 of The Linux Kernel CodingStyle document for Linus' angry words. :) My point is that the "should" in the question is perhaps not set in stone, after all.
It's amazing how many people get this wrong. PLEASE don't typedef structs in C, it needlessly pollutes the global namespace which is typically very polluted already in large C programs.
Also, typedef'd structs without a tag name are a major cause of needless imposition of ordering relationships among header files.
Consider:
#ifndef FOO_H
#define FOO_H 1
#define FOO_DEF (0xDEADBABE)
struct bar; /* forward declaration, defined in bar.h*/
struct foo {
struct bar *bar;
};
#endif
With such a definition, not using typedefs, it is possible for a compiland unit to include foo.h to get at the FOO_DEF definition. If it doesn't attempt to dereference the 'bar' member of the foo struct then there will be no need to include the "bar.h" file.
Also, since the namespaces are different between the tag names and the member names, it is possible to write very readable code such as:
struct foo *foo;
printf("foo->bar = %p", foo->bar);
Since the namespaces are separate, there is no conflict in naming variables coincident with their struct tag name.
If I have to maintain your code, I will remove your typedef'd structs.
programming languages - Why use typedefs for structs? - Software Engineering Stack Exchange
typedefing a struct
Is it bad to use typedef?
Whats the difference between a normal struct and a typedef struct?
Videos
I am confused as to what to use when. Here are two examples:
typedef struct { data } name;
struct name { data };
Up to now I have just used the typedef one as some sort of mini Class replacement. ( I come from an OOP backround and it's great to bundle some data. )
But can I use the normal struct the same way? Does it have a different application?
Thanks :)
I worked on a large project that extensively used typedef'd structs. We did so for a couple of reasons. Please keep in mind that this was pre-C99 and namespace segregation.
It was easier to type
my_buffer_type *bufferinstead ofstruct tag_buffer_type *buffer, and for the size of the codebase (1M+ loc) that made a big difference.It abstracts the structure into an object. Rather than focus on every individual variable within the struct, we would focus on the data object that it represented. This abstraction led to generally more useful and easier to write code.
- I think this is in direct contradiction to the quote attributed to Greg Kroah-Hartman that you provided. FWIW, that project was a client / server application and not a kernel so there's definitely some different considerations to take into account.
Treating the structure as an object also enabled us to better encapsulate the information. Code review caught quite a few situations where a newer developer would violate the principles of encapsulation we had put in place. Using typedef'd structs really made those violations obvious.
Portability was a concern as we wrote for a half-dozen platforms with the server and quite a few more with the client.
Every time instead of typing
struct my_buffer_type *buffer;
if you typedef it you can directly use
my_buffer_type *buffer;
typedef's main usege is to reduce the number of keystrokes required to write code and to enhance readability.