Home/ Questions/Q 752397
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-14T14:46:36+00:00

I have coworkers who occasionally use typedef to avoid typing. For example: typedef std::list<Foobar>

  • 0

I have coworkers who occasionally use typedef to avoid typing. For example:

typedef std::list<Foobar> FoobarList;
...
FoobarList GetFoobars();

Personally, I always hate coming across code like this, largely because it forces me to go lookup the typedef so I can tell how to use it. I also feel like this sort of thing is a potential slippery slope… If you do this, why aren’t you doing it more? (pretty soon, your code is totally obfuscated). I found this SO question regarding this issue:

When should I use typedef in C++?

I have two questions:

  1. am I truly alone in disliking this?
  2. If the vast majority of people think this sort of typedef use is OK, what criteria do you use to determine whether to typedef a type?
Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    The two big arguments for this type of typedef are the reduced typing, which you’ve already mentioned, and the ease of changing over to a new type of container. A FoobarList could be backed by a vector or a list or a deque and switching would often just require changing a typedef.

    Your dislike of them when it comes to looking them up, is quite reduced when dealing with IDEs, since I can just hover over the type name, and the IDE tells me what it’s defined as.

    The more useful situations are when you have nested containers – you can give the names some semantic meaning without having to define entire classes:

    typedef std::list<Foobar> FoobarList;
typedef std::map <string, FoobarList> GizmosToFoobarsMap;

    You can also save a LOT of typing when dealing with iterators of these types (although that’s reduced now that C++0x has auto.)

    • 0