On 8/2/07, Michael Schippling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are right about
> typedef struct { int16_t var; } MateValueVariable;
> being functionally equivalent to
> typedef int16_t MateValueVariable;
>
> However the usage would be a bit different.
> For the first you would do:
> MateValueVariable x;
> x.val = NNN;
> and the second:
> MateValueVariable x;
> x = NNN;
>
> Since there are two examples of seeming redundancy, and they have
> the same member name "val", someone may be trying to imitate Object
> Disoriented overloading or something.
I think the words you're looking for are "encapsulation", and "good
software engineering" ;-)
David Gay
_______________________________________________
Tinyos-help mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
