Re: Typedef structs
From: Keith Thompson (kst-u_at_mib.org)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: Joona I Palaste: "Re: Problem with passing dynamic arrays by reference"
- Previous message: Thomas Christmann: "Problem with passing dynamic arrays by reference"
- In reply to: Tim Rentsch: "Re: Typedef structs"
- Next in thread: Michael Wojcik: "Re: Typedef structs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:32:10 GMT
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumnus.caltech.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
> > The counterargument is that it hides (or attempts to hide) information
> > that shouldn't be hidden.
> ^^^^^^^^^
> What reasons would you offer that it shouldn't be hidden? In a separate
> article I responded to another poster's query and listed some advantages
> of the separate type name approach. Could one of the just-use-structs
> advocates respond and list some principal advantages of not using
> a separate type name?
I'm probably not one of the "just-use-structs advocates", but I'll
respond anyway.
I certainly have no objection to abstract types, and they should
probably be used more often than they are, but not all types are
abstract.
I gave several examples in my previous post. To repeat one of them,
the type "struct tm", declared in <time.h>, is visibly a struct.
Declaring a typedef, say "typedef struct tm { ... } tm;", and
declaring an object as
tm obj;
rather than as
struct tm obj;
doesn't really hide anything when you're referring to "obj.tm_sec"
anyway.
If struct tm were an abstract data type, with no defined members and a
purely functional interface, the typedef would make perfect sense.
Personally, I see the debate as something similar to the controversies
over brace style. Most people have their own preferences, and many
people feel quite strongly about them (perhaps with good reason), but
we all had better be able to cope with code written in styles other
than the one we like.
[...]
> > (Personally, I'm not as opposed to gratuitous typedefs for structs as
> > some people are, but I understand the arguments.)
>
> Keith, I'm disappointed. This kind of rhetoric - a content-free
> statement giving a "non-argument" argument, including the emotional
> hook word "gratuitous" - should be below you.
Huh?
The statement in parentheses wasn't meant to be an argument, just a
disclaimer. Feel free to read "gratuitous" as "not strictly
necessary" if it will make you happy. (I don't see "gratuitous" as a
purely pejorative term.)
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst> We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
- Next message: Joona I Palaste: "Re: Problem with passing dynamic arrays by reference"
- Previous message: Thomas Christmann: "Problem with passing dynamic arrays by reference"
- In reply to: Tim Rentsch: "Re: Typedef structs"
- Next in thread: Michael Wojcik: "Re: Typedef structs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
