> I avoid doing this. Just use `struct string { ... };'. It makes it clear what you're handling.
Well then imagine if Gtk made you write `struct GtkLabel`, etc. and you saw hundreds of `struct` on the screen taking up space in heavy UI code. Sometimes abstractions are worthwhile.
If I know for sure I'm never going to need to do that then OK.
typedef struct foo foo;
and somewhere else
struct foo { … }
typedef struct bla_s { ... } bla_t;
Using the same name also works just fine, since structs and type aliases live in different namespaces:
typedef struct bla_t { ... } bla_t;
struct _GtkLabel;
typedef struct _GtkLabel GtkLabel;
// Use GtkLabel* in declarations typedef struct GtkLabel GtkLabel;
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/blob/main/gtk/gtklabel....
TBH, in that case the GtkLabel (and, indeed, the entire widget hierarchy) should be opaque pointers anyway.
If you're not using a struct as an abstraction, then don't typedef it. If you are, then hide the damn fields.