A question about typedefs

[cbc]

Hi!

I'm just learning about C/C++, and I would like to ask the experts here about the difference between the two pieces of code below. From what I know (which is not a lot), these two pieces of code should be the same. But somehow, I feel that there's a subtle difference, since the author from whom I got this code knows his stuff and deliberately chose to write these two pieces of code this way.

// first typedef //////////////////////////////////

typedef struct
{
    //fields here...
} firstStruct;


// second typedef /////////////////////////////

typedef struct struct2 secondStruct;
struct struct2
{
    //fields here...
};

So my question is: is there a difference in these two typedefs? Because if there are none, he should have just written the second struct in the same way as the first one, saving himself additional typing.

Thanks.

[Salem]

Since you asked on the C board, I'll give you the C answer (despite you writing C/C++). As you may guess from this, the explanation for C++ is slightly different.

In the first case, the struct does not have a name (it is anonymous), and it can only be referred to via its typedef name (firstStruct).

The second struct has a name (struct2), and also a typedef name (secondStruct).

Giving a structure a name is necessary when you're creating self-referencing structures like linked lists.

In the first case, you can do
firstStruct a_variable;

In the second case, you can do
secondStruct a_variable;
struct struct2 another_variable;
Both amount to meaning the same thing

[Prelude]

>Both amount to meaning the same thing
Unless we're talking about self-referential structures. Then the first typedef would fail.

[cbc]

Why, thank you very much for your answers. I realized that the second struct was indeed a self-referring structure used in a linked list.