I've just started reading some material on sockets programming. These definitions in include/netinet/in.h caught my attention
and I'm wondering why they didn't simply defineCode:typedef uint32_t in_addr_t; struct in_addr { in_addr_t s_addr; };
?Code:typedef uint32_t in_addr;
What's the point of a struct consisting of just a single member?
Type safety.
It prevents an in_addr from being assigned any old number. Combined with a special creation function for in_addr objects, the programmer using the librairy does not even need to know that a in_addr is an 32 bit integer under the hood.
It is too clear and so it is hard to see.
A dunce once searched for fire with a lighted lantern.
Had he known what fire was,
He could have cooked his rice much sooner.
I don't get it. What prevents a programmer from assigningCode:in_addr.s_addr = 15;
The intelligence to use the interface instead of relying on implementation detail?Originally Posted by R.Stiltskin
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Ouch!
OK, first I'll learn the interface, then I'll ask the questions.
Hehe, I see how it can be read now. Nah, I was not trying to insult your intelligence
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Nothing. But it won't happen implicitly, and is less likely to be done accidentally.
For example, if you have a function that takes an in_addr, as the first arguement, and an int the second, if a programmer were to try to pass the arguments in the wrong order, it would lead to a compile time error.
It also allows a library developer to later change the member(s) of the struct, while being sure that the client code will still work, because the client does not directly need to access the members of the struct.
It is too clear and so it is hard to see.
A dunce once searched for fire with a lighted lantern.
Had he known what fire was,
He could have cooked his rice much sooner.
