----------------------------------- Martin Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:01 am typedef in Java? ----------------------------------- Is there anything equivalent to typedef in Java? ----------------------------------- rizzix Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:43 am ----------------------------------- No. ----------------------------------- wtd Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:03 pm ----------------------------------- What are you trying to accomplish? Perhaps we can help you find something that's functionally equivalent. ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:10 pm ----------------------------------- Just trying to shorten some variable declarations is all. Actually, I was trying to figure out if there was something similar to #define (so I could define a for-each loop in java 1.4.2) and then I realized that I couldn't use typedef either. ----------------------------------- wtd Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm ----------------------------------- The lack of text-substitution macros is a good thing. The lack of macros is not so good. ----------------------------------- [Gandalf] Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:18 pm ----------------------------------- I was going to ask something similar, so there are no structs, or anything like that in Java? I was trying to think of ways other than classes, and read some in my C book... ----------------------------------- wtd Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:41 pm ----------------------------------- No, there are not structs in Java. But then, structs in C++ are not really structs either. :) ----------------------------------- [Gandalf] Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:44 pm ----------------------------------- So most (all) organization is done with classes? Indeed... Just for the record, I was not neglecting to put the ++, it was a C book that I was reading :). ----------------------------------- wtd Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:49 pm ----------------------------------- "]So most (all) organization is done with classes? Yes, all organization is done within the context of a class. ----------------------------------- Martin Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:56 pm ----------------------------------- Just make a class and make all of the member variables public. There, you have a C++ struct. ----------------------------------- [Gandalf] Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:18 pm ----------------------------------- Sure, but then that would be an improper class, right? :) ----------------------------------- wtd Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:33 pm ----------------------------------- From an OOP standpoint, yes. Very much so. ----------------------------------- Martin Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:22 am ----------------------------------- But really, that's all that C++ structs are - classes with member variables public by default. ----------------------------------- wtd Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:38 am ----------------------------------- Member variables and member functions public by default.