Why many programmers reluctant to using typedef for struct declarations?

[broli86]

Are there any potential disadvantages ?

[MacGyver]

I didn't even know we established that many programmers are actually reluctant to using typedef for struct declarations.

[matsp]

One consequence of typedef is that the fact the type is a struct gets lost. If you have

struct blah 
{
   ... 
};

int func(struct blah *ptr)
{
...
}

then it's clear that func's argument is a struct.

If, on the other hand we do:

typedef struct tagblah
{
... 
} blah;

int func(blah *ptr)
{
...
}

It's not so clear from just reading the prototype that it's a structure.

Another consequence of typedef is that it (used as above) introduces TWO names to the global namespace, rather than one.

However, I agree with MacGyver, I don't believe that typedef's are underused by "many programmers".

--
Mats

[Magos]

Another consequence of typedef is that it (used as above) introduces TWO names to the global namespace, rather than one.

typedef struct
{
   //... 
} MyStruct;

[MacGyver]

It can't reference itself in that example.

[anon]

But you can typedef it to have the same name.

typedef struct blah
{
    /*...*/
} blah;

Blah can reference itself and you can also choose whether you add struct when referring to blah or not.

void foo(struct blah* pb)
{
    /*...*/
}