<div>
Both styles declare the exact same thing. &nbsp;I don't see an advantage of one over the other, however <br />
<br />
typedef MYSTRUCT *PMYSTRUCT<br />
<br />
seems much more common.<br />

</div>


Both styles declare the exact same thing.  I don't see an advantage of one over the other, however

typedef MYSTRUCT *PMYSTRUCT

seems much more common.


<div>
same thing, the compiler will make the same thing with both styles.<br />

</div>


same thing, the compiler will make the same thing with both styles.


Cox:  is that not more or less what I said?


<div>
scrapdog is correct. Your answers are the same.<br />
I thought that both typdefs should be the same. I have seen it done both ways and was just wondering which was preferable.<br />
scrapdog, if you lock this I will grade your response.<br />

</div>


scrapdog is correct. Your answers are the same.
I thought that both typdefs should be the same. I have seen it done both ways and was just wondering which was preferable.
scrapdog, if you lock this I will grade your response.


<div>
Both the pointer reference is same.<br />

</div>


<div>
<div class="content wysiwyg-content">
If I have a structure<br />
typedef struct {<br />
&nbsp; &nbsp;int i;<br />
&nbsp; &nbsp;int j;<br />
&nbsp; &nbsp;int k;<br />
} MYSTRUCT;<br />
And I want to declare a type that is a pointer to MYSTRUCT,<br />
which is the preferable way and why (or are these the same)?<br />
typedef MYSTRUCT* PMYSTRUCT;<br />
or<br />
typedef MYSTRUCT *PMYSTRUCT;<br />
Thank You
</div>
</div>


If I have a structure
typedef struct {
   int i;
   int j;
   int k;
} MYSTRUCT;
And I want to declare a type that is a pointer to MYSTRUCT,
which is the preferable way and why (or are these the same)?
typedef MYSTRUCT* PMYSTRUCT;
or
typedef MYSTRUCT *PMYSTRUCT;
Thank You

typedef*

C is a general-purpose, imperative computer programming language, supporting structured programming, lexical variable scope and recursion, while a static type system prevents many unintended operations. By design, C provides constructs that map efficiently to typical machine instructions, so it has found lasting use in applications that had formerly been coded in assembly language, including operating systems as well as various application software for computers ranging from supercomputers to embedded systems. It is distinct from C++ (which has its roots in C) and C#, and many later languages have borrowed directly or indirectly from C.