Why choose typedef'd unnamed struct over regular struct definition?

Asked Apr 13 '17 at 07:54

Active Apr 13 '17 at 08:08

Viewed 70 times

I am using a library, and it has multiple structs defined like this in its header

typedef struct
{
    unsigned int gid;
    unsigned int tilesetIndex;
    unsigned int tileFlatIndex;
    bool flipX, flipY, flipDiagonal;
} TmxLayerTile;

and I am wondering why is it so, instead of struct TmxLayerTile {...};? I understand that there is difference in C, that the former would allow using it with TmxLayerTile instead of struct TmxLayerTile, but for it being in C++, are these completely identical?

I understand this is pretty much semantics, but it got me curious.

asked Apr 13 '17 at 07:54

Coderino Javarino

2,819
4
21
43

It's the `C` way of doing things. – Richard Critten Apr 13 '17 at 07:55
It was the C-way. – Jarod42 Apr 13 '17 at 07:55
so is the answer 'just because'? – Coderino Javarino Apr 13 '17 at 07:56
Perhaps the library wants to be usable from C, or at least have its core types being compatible? That would be an actual reason. – unwind Apr 13 '17 at 07:58
this question is duplicate ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/612328/difference-between-struct-and-typedef-struct-in-c ) – V. Panchenko Apr 13 '17 at 08:13
Possible duplicate of [Difference between 'struct' and 'typedef struct' in C++?](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/612328/difference-between-struct-and-typedef-struct-in-c) – default Apr 13 '17 at 09:24
@V.Panchenko you are correct! Next time you can `flag` the question for closure instead via the flag link below the question. I'm not sure if you did that this time. – default Apr 13 '17 at 09:26

Why choose typedef'd unnamed struct over regular struct definition?

0 Answers0