Re: [dwm] C coding question

That brings me to another style question:

For me, it is easier to read and to understand when I write linked
structures that way:

typedef struct Abc {
 ...
 struct Abc *next;
} Abc;
...
Abc abc;

Is there a reason not to do so?

2007/10/2, Juanval <juanval_AT_gmail.com>:
> On 10/2/07, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_suckless.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 04:54:21PM +0200, Juanval wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > I'm revamping my C coding skills (in my university they just teach C++
> > > and Java, and I had to learn proper C on my own :-S), and I'm reading
> > > the dwm 4.3 as an exercise, as it seems a very elegantly written piece
> > > of code.
> > >
> > > And I was wondering why is Client defined this way:
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > typedef struct Client Client;
> > > struct Client {
> > > [...]
> > > };
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > Instead of doing it the same way as, for example, DC:
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > typedef struct {
> > > [...]
> > > } DC;
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Are there any functional differences I am missing? To me, they look
> > > like they do basically the same thing... :-S
> >
> > Yes, the first one is a forward declaration of the type Client
> > (which is defined as struct Client) because this is used within
> > the Client struct itself.
> >
> > In the second struct DC is not used within the struct itself, so
> > a forward declaration would be pointless.
>
> Aaaah, ok, that explains everything. Thanks a lot.
>
> And thanks yiyus for the c-faq link. I'll definitely spend lots of
> time on that page :)
>
>

-- 
http://www.gnuffy.org - Real Community Distro
http://www.gnuffy.org/index.php/GnuEm - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy)