Thread: Somthing wrong with my typedef struct.

When I use this script:

Code:

typedef struct tagWINDOWS {
	HWND DesktopHwnd;
	HWND Current;
} WINDOWS, *WINDOWS;

I get these errors comping up at the ending bracket of my struct:

conflicting declaration 'typedef struct tagWINDOWS*WINDOWS'
'WINDOWS' has a previous declaration as `typedef struct tagWINDOWS WINDOWS'
declaration of `typedef struct tagWINDOWS*WINDOWS'
conflicts with previous declaration `typedef struct tagWINDOWS WINDOWS'
declaration of `typedef struct tagWINDOWS*WINDOWS'
conflicts with previous declaration `typedef struct tagWINDOWS WINDOWS'
[Build Error] [PR.o] Error 1

But, when I use this script:

Code:

 
typedef struct tagWINDOWS {
	HWND DesktopHwnd;
	HWND Current;
}

I get these errors coming up with the begining bracket of the first function I declare after my struct:

new types may not be defined in a return type
extraneous `int' ignored
invalid function declaration
[Build Error] [PR.o] Error 1

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks in advance, August.

The syntax for typedef is:
typedef existing newalias, newalias2, newaliasn;

What do you expect typedef existing newalias, *newalias; to do?

Structs and typedefs also end in a ;

Also, typedef'ing a struct is not necesary in C++, struct foo is the same as foo. Secondly using a typedef to hide a pointer is particularly evil, unless you have a really good design reason for it (which I would love to hear), please don't do it.

In c++ programs typedef is unnecessary other than to rename something. Example: the following two are identical.

Code:

typedef struct WINDOWS
{
  // blabla
} WINDOWS;

struct WINDOWS
{
  // blabla
};

so you might want something like this

Code:

struct WINDOWS {
	HWND DesktopHwnd;
	HWND Current;
};

typedef WINDOWS* ptrWINDOWS;

>using a typedef to hide a pointer is particularly evil
I hate that too but a lot of programmers (including M$) do it.

Originally Posted by Orbitz

Also, typedef'ing a struct is not necesary in C++, struct foo is the same as foo. Secondly using a typedef to hide a pointer is particularly evil, unless you have a really good design reason for it (which I would love to hear), please don't do it.

Why is it particularly evil?

Well, why not explain to me why you'd want to. What does hiding the fact that you have a pointer object do for you? You have constructors and destructors in C++ so you can handle creation and deletion of the obejct in there so you don't have to create explicit functions, (see FILE in C).

So if you can answer why you'd want to hide the fact that it's a pointer then by all means go for it, however it seems more of a nusance to me rather than helpful.

To be honest, I didn't realize I was hiding it, because I have never used structs before, this is my first attempt!

Originally Posted by orbitz

Well, why not explain to me why you'd want to. What does hiding the fact that you have a pointer object do for you? You have constructors and destructors in C++ so you can handle creation and deletion of the obejct in there so you don't have to create explicit functions, (see FILE in C).

So if you can answer why you'd want to hide the fact that it's a pointer then by all means go for it, however it seems more of a nusance to me rather than helpful.

I agree. I always find myself hunting around for what those damned things are -- how they are defined. Just using a plain-old every-day ordinary pointer makes the program a great deal easier to read.

this has been addressed in a previous post but apparently needs to be restarted here:

STRUCTS AND CLASSES ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.