3 ms·

Not sure I follow. > scalars So you would typedef the scalars then? If you don't, then scalars will be the built-in types (which you'd presumably know well) a

• Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  Yes, I think typedefing scalars is fine. Typedefs are useful for abstracting the underlying storage mechanism for a scalar (so you can i.e. change it on different archictures or in a future release without breakage), not for saving yourself 6 characters of typing.
  • eps 10y ago
    Typedefs are useful for creating short-hand names for otherwise long or complicated type definitions. Saving 7 (6 for 'struct' + space) characters is as good use for typedef as any other.
    • falcolas 10y ago
      You only have to write each set of seven characters once; yes, typing will require a bit more effort. However, we shouldn't optimize code for the ease of writing, we should be optimizing for the ease of reading. Write once, read many. `struct foo` is a bit more instructive when understanding code than `foo`; at worst, they read the same to someone familiar to the codebase, at best they prevent the need to flip back and forth to the type definitions.
      • dTal 10y ago
        >Typedefs are useful for abstracting the underlying storage mechanism for a scalar (so you can i.e. change it on different archictures or in a future release without breakage), not for saving yourself 6 characters of typing.
  • duck2 10y ago
    You can just use stdint types. Or is it really better to typedef a CUTE_INT?
    • ddevault 10y ago
      That's not what I'm talking about. CUTE_INT is stupid, but maybe mylib_error makes sense. It depends on context.
• mbel 10y ago
  There are also enums, which are user defined scalar types (although I don't think this fact really affects your argument).