c language

[jaseweb]

can anybody explain

Structures and how to use it in 'c'.

thanks

[jc]

I'm not ure it's a good forum to post this question ...

[Don't Disturb]

A struct is just like a C++ class, but without member functions.

[This message has been edited by Don't Disturb (edited 11-16-2000).]

[convict@large]

"can anybody explain
Structures and how to use it in 'c'."
Sure.

To define a structure use the following:
typedef struct tagStructureName
{
VaribleType VaribleName;
}StructureName;

To create an instance of a structure do the following:
StructureName StructureInstanceName;

To access a member of a structure do this:
StructureInstanceName.VaribleName = value;

To access a member of a structure via a pointer do this:
PointerToStructureInstanceName->VaribleName = value;

Hows that? If you have any other questions then mail me at Daniel@TheRealityDysfunction.com but you should not be asking this sort of question in the Advanced topics forum ask instead in the beginners!

Cheers,

Daniel

[Gorg]

Originally posted by Don't Disturb:
A struct is just like a C++ class, but without member functions.

[This message has been edited by Don't Disturb (edited 11-16-2000).]


Wrong. A struct is exactly like a class but with all the all members public instead of private. You can have member functions for structure too.

[mike j]

www.informit.com (http://www.informit.com)

register and click the links to the free
library - you'll find a couple of 'online books' on C

[Deiussum]

Originally posted by Gorg:

Wrong. A struct is exactly like a class but with all the all members public instead of private. You can have member functions for structure too.

This is true for structs in C++, but not in pure C. Anyway, I agree that this type of question would probably be better asked on a different board.

[Siwko]

Originally posted by Deiussum:
This is true for structs in C++, but not in pure C. Anyway, I agree that this type of question would probably be better asked on a different board.

Wrong again... you actually can have member functions in a pure C struct... though you must do it using pointers to functions. Sure, its a round about way of doing it, but where do you think C++ got its roots from? Not java!

Neener neener! http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Siwko

[Deiussum]

Originally posted by Siwko:
Wrong again... you actually can have member functions in a pure C struct... though you must do it using pointers to functions. Sure, its a round about way of doing it, but where do you think C++ got its roots from? Not java!

Neener neener! http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Siwko

Heheh, ok. I was thinking of member functions in the traditional sense rather than using function pointers for that. You're right, though. It's a roundabout way of doing it but would work.

[john]

Pointers to functions is a bit below the belt, eh? :P You sneak!

For the point of debate, pointers to functions are *not* member functions because they don't have a pointer to THIS. So, I'd argue, althought structs can *have* fucntions, they're *not* member functions, but more like friends.

<shrugs>

cheers,
John