- >和之间的区别。 在一个结构？

Question

If I have a struct like

struct account {
   int account_number;
};

Then what's the difference between doing

myAccount.account_number;

and

myAccount->account_number;

or isn't there a difference?

If there's no difference, why wouldn't you just use the . notation rather than -> ? -> seems so messy.

Answer 1

-> is a shorthand for (*x).field , where x is a pointer to a variable of type struct account , and field is a field in the struct, such as account_number .

If you have a pointer to a struct, then saying

accountp->account_number;

is much more concise than

(*accountp).account_number;

Answer 2

You use . when you're dealing with variables. You use -> when you are dealing with pointers.

For example:

struct account {
   int account_number;
};

Declare a new variable of type struct account :

struct account s;
...
// initializing the variable
s.account_number = 1;

Declare a as a pointer to struct account :

struct account *a;
...
// initializing the variable
a = &some_account;  // point the pointer to some_account
a->account_number = 1; // modifying the value of account_number

Using a->account_number = 1; is an alternate syntax for (*a).account_number = 1;

I hope this helps.

Answer 3

You use the different notation according to whether the left-hand side is a object or a pointer.

// correct:
struct account myAccount;
myAccount.account_number;

// also correct:
struct account* pMyAccount;
pMyAccount->account_number;

// also, also correct
(*pMyAccount).account_number;

// incorrect:
myAccount->account_number;
pMyAccount.account_number;

Answer 4

-> is a pointer dereference and . accessor combined

Answer 5

If myAccount is a pointer, use this syntax:

myAccount->account_number;

If it's not, use this one instead:

myAccount.account_number;

Answer 6

yes you can use struct membrs both the ways...

one is with DOt:(" . ")

myAccount.account_number;

anotherone is:(" -> ")

(&myAccount)->account_number;