Struct function on C

Question

I have got a question i am working on and this is as follows (with a bunch of constants that aren't relevant)

Use a struct to represent an (x, y) coordinate. A second struct must then be used to represent the sound source — its (x, y) coordinate and the W value. You will also need to declare an appropriate array of struct variables. You may assume that not more the 100 sound sources will be involved in the plant/site being analysed.

This is what i got so far;

    struct point
{
    double x, y;
};
/* for sound sources */
struct source
{
    struct point location;
    float power;
};

Is there anyway to rewrite this in a different way? or a 'more correct' way?

there is no "more correct" way than this , if you will never use point struct seperately , you can define x and y in source struct , but this is only a personal choice — Alper Cinar, Oct 18 '14 at 13:51
This looks good to me. The array definition could be something like `struct source sources[100];` — Peter - Reinstate Monica, Oct 18 '14 at 13:52
@AlperCinar: Spec explicitly stated that 2 structs were needed. — Scott Hunter, Oct 18 '14 at 13:52
@ScottHunter I'm almost sure the OP edited his sources with jedit. — Peter - Reinstate Monica, Oct 18 '14 at 13:52
@PeterSchneider: OP probably used a particular OS; doesn't make it any more relevant to the question. — Scott Hunter, Oct 18 '14 at 13:53
@Peter: and it's entirely **unrelated** to the question. -> removed — Jongware, Oct 18 '14 at 13:54
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about code style. This belongs on codereview.stackexchange.com — La-comadreja, Oct 18 '14 at 14:03

score 0 · Answer 1 · answered Oct 18 '14 at 13:51

There is nothing wrong with what you have written, although it doesn't include the last part of your spec (the array).

There are many other ways to do this; how relatively "correct " they are to this one depends on what criteria you have for comparing them, none of which you have provided. Besides, that kind of discussion is better suited for a code review, and hence a question for a different site.

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Oct 18 '14 at 13:52

0

That looks fine, but there is another way to write this that I tend to prefer:

typedef struct tagPoint
{
    double x, y;
} point, *pPoint;

typedef struct tagSource
{
    point location;
    float power;
} source, *pSource;

I find this method a bit cleaner, as you do not need to write out the struct each time you use the structure.

answered Oct 18 '14 at 13:52

Brett Wolfington

6,587
4
32
51

But be aware that some view typedef'ing a structure to be a mistake: (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/252780/why-should-we-typedef-a-struct-so-often-in-c) The Linux kernel code style guide, for instance, explicitly disallows it. – Calpau Oct 24 '14 at 19:36
That's true, but on the other hand, the Windows APIs use it frequently. I think there is reasonable room for disagreement on this one. – Brett Wolfington Oct 25 '14 at 21:08

Struct function on C

2 Answers2