Typedefing structs as arrays of size 1

[Fred]

Can anyone explain what the point of this is?

For example, code like:

typedef struct {
int alloc;
char *data;
} my_struct;

typedef my_struct my_type_t[1];

What's the advantage of making the my_type_t type an array of 1
my_struct? Why not either just make it a plain typedef for the struct,
or else make it a typedef for a pointer to the struct?

TIA!

[Richard Bos]

Fred <no****@nospam.comwrote:

Can anyone explain what the point of this is?

For example, code like:

typedef struct {
int alloc;
char *data;
} my_struct;

typedef my_struct my_type_t[1];

What's the advantage of making the my_type_t type an array of 1
my_struct? Why not either just make it a plain typedef for the struct,
or else make it a typedef for a pointer to the struct?

Without context, there seems to be no point. How is my_type_t used?

Richard

[Mark Bluemel]

Richard Bos wrote:

Fred <no****@nospam.comwrote:

>Can anyone explain what the point of this is?

For example, code like:

typedef struct {
int alloc;
char *data;
} my_struct;

typedef my_struct my_type_t[1];

What's the advantage of making the my_type_t type an array of 1
my_struct? Why not either just make it a plain typedef for the struct,
or else make it a typedef for a pointer to the struct?

Without context, there seems to be no point. How is my_type_t used?

There was a discussion of this sort of thing very recently. The normal
reason seems to be to allow a my_struct to be, in effect, passed by
reference without using "&"...

[Richard Tobin]

In article <sl*******************@nospam.com>, Fred <no****@nospam.comwrote:
[...]

Another post through an anonymous server, asking a question that was
asked just a week or two ago. I don't know whether it's a troll,
or someone on a course whose tutor wants us to do the teaching, or what,
but I suggest not answering questions with these characteristics.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[Kenneth Brody]

Fred wrote:

>
Can anyone explain what the point of this is?

For example, code like:

typedef struct {
int alloc;
char *data;
} my_struct;

typedef my_struct my_type_t[1];

What's the advantage of making the my_type_t type an array of 1
my_struct? Why not either just make it a plain typedef for the struct,
or else make it a typedef for a pointer to the struct?

It's an attempt to do things like "pass by reference" rather than
"pass by value" when referring to my_type_t.

(Crossing fingers and hoping I don't mess this up.)

Consider:

void func(void)
{
my_struct foo;
my_type_t bar;

func2(foo,bar);
}

Here, "foo" will be passed by value, but bar will be passed by
reference (sort of) because it's an array.

It has an advantage over a pointer-to-struct, because:

typedef my_struct *my_type_t2;
...
my_type_t2 foobar;

will not allocate storage for the struct.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>