Can't #define ushort

[bird1500]

Hi,
I define this:
#define ushort unsigned short

in shared.h and when I include it in a class header like this:

//class Server.h
#include "shared.h"
...
ushort port;

I get errors when trying to compile:

make
[ 25%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/ufbio.dir/Server.cpp.o
In file included from /usr/include/stdlib.h:320:0,
from /media/docs/dev/ufbio/Server.cpp:4:
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/types.h:152:1: error: duplicate ‘unsigned’
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/types.h:152:1: error: duplicate ‘short’
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/types.h:152:28: error: declaration does not declare anything [-fpermissive]
make[2]: *** [CMakeFiles/ufbio.dir/Server.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/ufbio.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

What am I doing wrong?


EDIT: for some reason including <sys/types.h> after including "shared.h" causes these errors.

[ofnuts]

Hi,
I define this:
#define ushort unsigned short

in shared.h and when I include it in a class header like this:

//class Server.h
#include "shared.h"
...
ushort port;

I get errors when trying to compile:

What am I doing wrong?


EDIT: for some reason including <sys/types.h> after including "shared.h" causes these errors.

Maybe that should be a typedef and not a #define anyway.

[bird1500]

Maybe that should be a typedef and not a #define anyway.

Thanks, I have completely forgotten about typedef. As far as I understand, typedef is basically a better #define.

[trent.josephsen]

Hi,
I define this:
#define ushort unsigned short

For the love of $deity, WHY?

I agree that the feature you really want is typedef, but why would you want to typedef a built-in type WITH A SLIGHTLY SHORTER VERSION OF THE SAME NAME?

While you're at it, why don't you

typedef int i;
typedef char c;
typedef short s;
...

And since that's so repetitive, maybe we can make it even shorter and less readable:

#define t typedef
t int i;
t char c;
...

Oh, while we're at it, why don't we throw in some extra #defines, you know, just to save keystrokes:

#define f for
#define w while
#define p printf

Sorry to be rude, but unless your goal is to make C look like APL, why don't you use the names that are provided?

[bird1500]

To me "ushort" is much shorter than "unsigned short", just as "uint" is much shorter than "unsigned int".
Vala and D did the same thing, there's also gnu's guchar, so it's hardly a pedantic idea.

[trent.josephsen]

To me "ushort" is much shorter than "unsigned short", just as "uint" is much shorter than "unsigned int".

Conciseness is a poor excuse for making code more complex and less readable.

Vala and D did the same thing, there's also gnu's guchar, so it's hardly a pedantic idea.

Vala and D are different languages from C and are free to name their types however they want. As for GLib's basic types, well, I can think of one or two weak justifications for why they would do that, but "so-and-so did it" is an equally poor excuse for typedef abuse. Justify yourself, don't point to what other people did.

[bird1500]

Conciseness is a poor excuse for making code more complex and less readable.


Vala and D are different languages from C and are free to name their types however they want. As for GLib's basic types, well, I can think of one or two weak justifications for why they would do that, but "so-and-so did it" is an equally poor excuse for typedef abuse. Justify yourself, don't point to what other people did.

It doesn't matter if Vala and D are different languages - you don't get the point, and I can do with C++ whatever I want cause C++ is no less "free" than Vala and D, and it certainly doesn't have to obey your angry pedantic dogmas. And I don't care if you like it or not, trust me, I don't care what is more readable to you, just like the gnu/Vala/D/whatever folks did - we don't care about random people ranting around. If you're in a bad mood take a hike, but don't try teaching us about your naive worldview.

[trent.josephsen]

...

[ofnuts]

I don't care what is more readable to you, just like the gnu/Vala/D/whatever folks did - we don't care about random people

Just love that "we"...

[the_unforgiven]

Hi,
I define this:
#define ushort unsigned short

in shared.h and when I include it in a class header like this:

//class Server.h
#include "shared.h"
...
ushort port;

I get errors when trying to compile:

What am I doing wrong?


EDIT: for some reason including <sys/types.h> after including "shared.h" causes these errors.

That's because they're already typedefed in <sys/types.h>

You're not the only one with this requirement - standard C library has had a lot of lazy users already

I'd rather trust the standard libraries because their designers are a lot more careful in writing portable code