> But what if we want a struct to feel like a real C type?
Remove this; it's already a real type. You could go over the two namespaces and why you need to type 'struct' otherwise, but I wouldn't present a false dichotomy of real and "unreal" types.
> Declaring a Struct as a New Type
It's not really a new type. It's a type alias, and the two names can be used interchangeably. I would just call it a type alias.
> If we declare a structure variable without initializing it, like any other variable in C, it will be uninitialized at first and may contain random values.
I also see no mention of = {} or = {0} (I forget which is Standard C and which is C++). Since you already talk about "random values", you might as well explain how to 0-initialize a struct.
Remove this; it's already a real type. You could go over the two namespaces and why you need to type 'struct' otherwise, but I wouldn't present a false dichotomy of real and "unreal" types.
> Declaring a Struct as a New Type
It's not really a new type. It's a type alias, and the two names can be used interchangeably. I would just call it a type alias.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/typedef
> If we declare a structure variable without initializing it, like any other variable in C, it will be uninitialized at first and may contain random values.
I also see no mention of = {} or = {0} (I forget which is Standard C and which is C++). Since you already talk about "random values", you might as well explain how to 0-initialize a struct.