Quote:Original post by newioi've written the same type of linked list code for each object

First thing coming to mind is having list elements like
struct {ListElement *next; void* data;};
It even allows you to dump completely unrelated things in the same list (figuring out what to cast it into would require a type-field in all objects though, and the gazillion if's or switches won't help performance)

Quote:and written a new struct for each object that practically have the same data.

What would be wrong about making a _seperate_ struct for all this data and just make all these objects HAVE one of them? Not as nice, but almost the same result as inheriting.

Quote:Original post by newio i've written the same type of linked list code for each object

you could use void*'s for that you know?:

struct Foo{   //.. generic data pointer    void* pData;   struct Foo* next;   struct Foo* prev;};

That's how I did code reuse in C and just type-casted to the appropiate type.
I of course have since moved along to C++ - mainly for code reuse.

Oh.. and about your problem: have you tried printing out the address for the shell variable and the qualified shell data member to see if they're really pointing to the same object?

- xeddiex

Quote:Original post by newio
Hi, i've ran across a little difficulty, i've solved the problem but would like to know why this is for future reference:

Programming in C, im running into some pretty long nested structs:

tank->turrent->shell->mov->vel_x

I figured i could save myself some typing by:

SHELL* shell = tank->turrent->shell;shell->mov->vel_x;

I figured this would be using the same memory address, and therefore the same SHELL struct. But it turns out it makes a new one or something (or at least it wouldn't update the tank->turrent->shell struct).

What you've done is create a new variable (shell) of type pointer to SHELL and assigned it the value from tank->turrent->shell. You should be able to use this new variable to access the values it points to. It looks to me that the problem is that you aren't doing anything with

shell->mov->vel_x;

You need to assign a different value to it, pass it to a function or operate on it in some other way, for example, increment or decrement it.

shell->mov->vel_x++;
shell->mov->vel_x--;

It's also possible that one of these struct member names isn't a pointer but an actual structure and thus it's child members should be accessed using dot notation instead.

tank->turrent->shell.mov->vel_x++;

It really depends on how each of these structures is defined. If the structure contains a pointer to a structure, members of that structure should be accessed through the pointer using -> notation. If the structure contains another structure, members of that structure should be accessed using dot notation.

To use the structures from vbms, with C syntax:

typedef struct tagTPOS { int pos; } TPOS;
typedef struct tagTURT { TPOS *tpos; } TURT;
typedef struct tagTANK { TURT *turt; } TANK;

TANK *tank = malloc(sizeof(*tank));
tank->turt = malloc(sizeof(TURT));
tank->turt->tpos = malloc(sizeof(TPOS));
tank->turt->tpos.pos = position; // what ever value you want to assign

Change those structure definitions a bit and you have to change the notation

typedef struct tagTPOS { int pos; } TPOS;
typedef struct tagTURT { TPOS tpos; } TURT; // notice the change here
typedef struct tagTANK { TURT *turt; } TANK;

TANK *tank = malloc(sizeof(*tank));
tank->turt = malloc(sizeof(TURT));
tank->turt.tpos.pos = position; // what ever value you want to assign

Hope that helps.

Quote:Original post by newio
Is there something im missing here. Im from a Java background so pointers are taking me a lil time to get used to (getting there, but been reading too much, need some straight answers to save my brain!)

Switching to C++ isn't going to resolve your issues with pointers. C++ accomodates oop programming, allowing you to take advantage of your java background, but there are still differences between these languages.