C/C++ question on struct definitions

Hi,

This might very well be a C question. I am posting it here because it refers to some code in Bruce Eckels's 'Thinking in C++'. Apologies if this causes any inconvenience.

There is a struct definition, and use thereof, on p.248-250 that confuses me.

Within struct Stack, he defines the nested struct:

Code:

---

struct Link {
  void* data;
  Link* next;
  void intialize(void* dat, Link* nxt);
}* head;

---

Then, in the associated function Stack::push(void* dat);
he creates a Link like this:

Code:

---

Link* newLink = new Link;
newLink->initialize(dat, head);
head = newLink;

---

There are a couple of things that I don't follow here.
Firstly, he has not needed to call Link like this:

Code:

---

struct Link newLink......

---

I was sure that a struct had to be initialized with an explicit struct definition unless it was typedeffed into the word between } and ; at the end of the struct. Was I completely wrong?

Does he say on p.230-231 that this is a difference between C and C++ ? (I am not confident enough at either to tell for sure).

Secondly, the word between } and ; here is * head. But * head is not a type definition in this case. Rather it is a particular instance of Link, namely the access point to the single-linked list for the container class. He says this is a legacy from C.

*head in this case, seems to be just a particular instance of a Link. Is this what is taking place?

Apologies again if this is in the wrong place. But part of the problem is that I am not sure what is C and C++ here. It is a nice example in Eckel, and I would like to use similar code myself, but I don't yet understand it.

Thanks!

It's C++ because of the use of new.

In C the struct keyword is required; C++ does not require the struct.

You are correct on the second point.

Hi,

Thanks for your help, and of course you're right vis a vis "new" - my slip there.

Regarding the last point, is this something you can do in C as well as in C++ and, in C++, does it work with classes as well as structs?

Yes, and yes. You have always (for a suitable definition of "always") been able to declare variables of a struct type when you were declaring the type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by junket

Hi,
... is this something you can do in C as well as in C++ and, in C++, does it work with classes as well as structs?

---

But of course in C you can't declare a function inside a struct, and the pointer declaration inside the struct would have to include the struct keyword.

In C++, you should get used to the idea that a struct is almost exactly the same as a class. The only difference is that in a class all members are private by default, and in a struct all members are public by default. A C++ struct can contain constructors, a destructor, and other functions, and its members can be explicitly declared as private or public the same as you would in a class.

Great, thanks alot for all your help.

It seems like there is alot of ways to do things in C++, maybe because some things were preserved for backwards compatibility, but then people decided they liked the choice anyway.

Which is all good by me.

Cheers!