Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3492748
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 18, 20262026-05-18T11:47:49+00:00 2026-05-18T11:47:49+00:00

I personally don’t like old C-style of struct declarations like that: typedef struct {}

  • 0

I personally don’t like old C-style of struct declarations like that:

typedef struct {} NewType;

ctags makes ugly anon types of this and make the debugging difficult. Is there any reason in C++ code using typedef struct instead of simply struct, except the code is used in both C and C++?

Regards,
Valentin

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-18T11:47:49+00:00Added an answer on May 18, 2026 at 11:47 am

    One major drawback of those

    typedef struct tagSomethingSomething SomethingSomething;
    

    is that, forward-declarations are not possible with the commonly used typedef’fed name.

    Yes, it’s a C-ism (kudos sbi) and there are c++-codebases, where it – unfortunately – (still) is common.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I personally like the exclusive or , ^ , operator when it makes sense
I personally don't use FxCop yet. We want to work out the unit testing
Personally I like this one: P.S. Do not hotlink the cartoon without the site's
Personally, I've found that when good developers deal with clients, they often get sucked
Personally, I find the range of functionality provided by java.util.Iterator to be fairly pathetic.
Personally I really prefer Unit Testing and write them for good coverage. (let's say
I personally used Mercurial and Subversion in a limited way and I just can't
I personally loathe background music on a website. My client has opposite feelings on
I've personally always used some type of external application for my SCM work; these
When have you ever personally come upon the halting problem in the field? This

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.