Why should we typedef a struct so often in C?

As Greg Hewgill said, the typedef means you no longer have to write struct all over the place. That not only saves keystrokes, it also can make the code cleaner since it provides a smidgen more abstraction.

Stuff like

typedef struct {  int x, y;} Point;Point point_new(int x, int y){  Point a;  a.x = x;  a.y = y;  return a;}

becomes cleaner when you don't need to see the "struct" keyword all over the place, it looks more as if there really is a type called "Point" in your language. Which, after the typedef, is the case I guess.

Also note that while your example (and mine) omitted naming the struct itself, actually naming it is also useful for when you want to provide an opaque type. Then you'd have code like this in the header, for instance:

typedef struct Point Point;Point * point_new(int x, int y);

and then provide the struct definition in the implementation file:

struct Point{  int x, y;};Point * point_new(int x, int y){  Point *p;  if((p = malloc(sizeof *p)) != NULL)  {    p->x = x;    p->y = y;  }  return p;}

In this latter case, you cannot return the Point by value, since its definition is hidden from users of the header file. This is a technique used widely in GTK+, for instance.

UPDATE Note that there are also highly-regarded C projects where this use of typedef to hide struct is considered a bad idea, the Linux kernel is probably the most well-known such project. See Chapter 5 of The Linux Kernel CodingStyle document for Linus' angry words. :) My point is that the "should" in the question is perhaps not set in stone, after all.

It's amazing how many people get this wrong. PLEASE don't typedef structs in C, it needlessly pollutes the global namespace which is typically very polluted already in large C programs.

Also, typedef'd structs without a tag name are a major cause of needless imposition of ordering relationships among header files.

Consider:

#ifndef FOO_H#define FOO_H 1#define FOO_DEF (0xDEADBABE)struct bar; /* forward declaration, defined in bar.h*/struct foo {  struct bar *bar;};#endif

With such a definition, not using typedefs, it is possible for a compiland unit to include foo.h to get at the FOO_DEF definition. If it doesn't attempt to dereference the 'bar' member of the foo struct then there will be no need to include the "bar.h" file.

Also, since the namespaces are different between the tag names and the member names, it is possible to write very readable code such as:

struct foo *foo;printf("foo->bar = %p", foo->bar);

Since the namespaces are separate, there is no conflict in naming variables coincident with their struct tag name.

If I have to maintain your code, I will remove your typedef'd structs.

From an old article by Dan Saks (http://www.ddj.com/cpp/184403396?pgno=3):

The C language rules for naming structs are a little eccentric, but they're pretty harmless. However, when extended to classes in C++, those same rules open little cracks for bugs to crawl through.

In C, the name s appearing in

struct s    {    ...    };

is a tag. A tag name is not a type name. Given the definition above, declarations such as

s x;    /* error in C */s *p;   /* error in C */

are errors in C. You must write them as

struct s x;     /* OK */struct s *p;    /* OK */

The names of unions and enumerations are also tags rather than types.

In C, tags are distinct from all other names (for functions, types, variables, and enumeration constants). C compilers maintain tags in a symbol table that's conceptually if not physically separate from the table that holds all other names. Thus, it is possible for a C program to have both a tag and an another name with the same spelling in the same scope. For example,

struct s s;

is a valid declaration which declares variable s of type struct s. It may not be good practice, but C compilers must accept it. I have never seen a rationale for why C was designed this way. I have always thought it was a mistake, but there it is.

Many programmers (including yours truly) prefer to think of struct names as type names, so they define an alias for the tag using a typedef. For example, defining

struct s    {    ...    };typedef struct s S;

lets you use S in place of struct s, as in

S x;S *p;

A program cannot use S as the name of both a type and a variable (or function or enumeration constant):

S S;    // error

This is good.

The tag name in a struct, union, or enum definition is optional. Many programmers fold the struct definition into the typedef and dispense with the tag altogether, as in:

typedef struct    {    ...    } S;

The linked article also has a discussion about how the C++ behavior of not requireing a typedef can cause subtle name hiding problems. To prevent these problems, it's a good idea to typedef your classes and structs in C++, too, even though at first glance it appears to be unnecessary. In C++, with the typedef the name hiding become an error that the compiler tells you about rather than a hidden source of potential problems.