«

What will happen if i replace a typedef with a #define?

vivek wrote:

> What will happen if i replace a typedef with a #define?

See:

<http://c-faq.com/decl/typedefvsdefine.html>

vivek wrote:

> What will happen if i replace a typedef with a #define?

Your code will break [1].

[1] Probably. Why court disaster? Why replace the right construct with
the wrong one?

--
"Ashes are burning the way." - Renaissance, /Ashes Are Burning/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered no:
registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

On Mar 4, 4:56 am, vivek <gvivek2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What will happen if i replace a typedef with a #define?

It depends. Let's suppose you've created a typedef for a pointer to
int:

typedef int *iptr;
iptr px, py;

Both px and py will be typed int*.

Now we replace it with a macro:
#define IPTR int *
IPTR px, py;

After preprocessing, this will expand to
int * px, py;

In this case, only px will be typed int*; py will be a plain int.

So, for this particular case, you get different results.

Some typedefs would be difficult to replace with a macro. For
example, take

typedef int *(*(*foo)[20])(char c);

foo is a synonym for "pointer to 20-element array of pointers to
functions taking a char parameter and returning a pointer to int." A
simple macro to replace this typedef would be, well, not so simple.

John Bode wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 11:44 am, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 2:56 am, vivek <gvivek2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What will happen if i replace a typedef with a #define?
> >
> > Nothing of consequence.
> >
> > Eminent computer scientist S**** N**** demonstrated, years ago, that
> > they are the same thing.
> >
> >
>
> DO NOT SPEAK THAT NAME, lest he notice and come back to pester us
> again, with the Three Stooges (Twink, McCormack, and Just Richard)
> egging him on.

Heh - might as well invoke all the demons...

What ever happened to that lad who preached that hexadecimal was
the one true number system?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

On Mar 4, 2:56*am, vivek <gvivek2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What will happen if i replace a typedef with a #define?

Nothing of consequence.

Eminent computer scientist Scott Nudds demonstrated, years ago, that
they are the same thing.

On Mar 4, 11:44 am, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2:56 am, vivek <gvivek2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What will happen if i replace a typedef with a #define?
>
> Nothing of consequence.
>
> Eminent computer scientist S**** N**** demonstrated, years ago, that
> they are the same thing.
>
>

DO NOT SPEAK THAT NAME, lest he notice and come back to pester us
again, with the Three Stooges (Twink, McCormack, and Just Richard)
egging him on.

"John Bode" <> wrote in message
news:81264305-222f-4c7f-9551-...
> On Mar 4, 4:56 am, vivek <gvivek2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What will happen if i replace a typedef with a #define?

> Some typedefs would be difficult to replace with a macro. For
> example, take
>
> typedef int *(*(*foo)[20])(char c);

>foo is a synonym for "pointer to 20-element array of pointers to
>functions taking a char parameter and returning a pointer to int."

Are you saying that:

typedef int *(*(*foo)[20])(char c);

Creates a complex type with an alias of foo; while:

int *(*(*bar)[20])(char c);

Creates a variable bar with that same type? (Not sure what the 'c' is doing
in there).

How would I specify that same complex type without either the foo or bar
tag, as in a cast for example? Is it just:

(int *(*(*)[20])(char c))

?

--
Bart

On Mar 4, 12:23 pm, "Bartc" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> "John Bode" <john_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:81264305-222f-4c7f-9551-...
>
> > On Mar 4, 4:56 am, vivek <gvivek2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> What will happen if i replace a typedef with a #define?
> > Some typedefs would be difficult to replace with a macro. For
> > example, take
>
> > typedef int *(*(*foo)[20])(char c);
> >foo is a synonym for "pointer to 20-element array of pointers to
> >functions taking a char parameter and returning a pointer to int."
>
> Are you saying that:
>
> typedef int *(*(*foo)[20])(char c);
>
> Creates a complex type with an alias of foo; while:
>
> int *(*(*bar)[20])(char c);
>
> Creates a variable bar with that same type?

Yes.

> (Not sure what the 'c' is doing in there).

Documentation.

>
> How would I specify that same complex type without either the foo or bar
> tag, as in a cast for example? Is it just:
>
> (int *(*(*)[20])(char c))
>

I *think* that's right, but I won't swear to it. Hopefully you should
never need such a beast; if you do, that's where the typedef would
save your bacon. Bear in mind, that's a deliberately pathological,
made-up example to show where using a #define instead of a typedef
would fail.

> ?
>
> --
> Bart

Micah Cowan wrote:
>
> Morris Dovey <> writes:

> > Heh - might as well invoke all the demons...
>
> Ah, so _those_ are what flew out my nose when I forgot to ensure
> isalpha()'s argument was representable as an unsigned char.

Been wondering what you've been doing <g>

I thought it might've been all my fault - I've been developing a
DS.009 whose stdin, stdout, stderr, root partition, <everything>
is hot-swappable (see web page at sig) so that they need to be
continually "rediscovered" - and I've been suspecting that our
favorite redhead might have expanded red/black to
red/orange/yellow/green/blue/black and promulgated severe
dimensional instabilities leading to the strange conjunction of
all moons in the solar system waxing to fullness at the same
instant.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Monitor/