Date:	Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:11:21 +0200 (MET DST)
From:	pad2369 <pad2369 AT iperbole DOT bologna DOT it>
Message-Id:	<200004070911.LAA12136@maggiore.iperbole.bologna.it>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References:	<eeLF4.13555$K9 DOT 107792 AT typhoon DOT nyroc DOT rr DOT com> <v7umesob3dvcog3a0nhe9e8h4trging7v5 AT 4ax DOT com> <38eda615 DOT 11483373 AT news DOT mysolution DOT com> <200004061957 DOT PAA14708 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<200004061957.PAA14708@envy.delorie.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.11
Sender:	pad2369 AT iperbole DOT bologna DOT it
Subject:	Re: classes
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Quota DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>:

> 
> > Similar yes, but with 'added' features. AFAICR, 
structs, in the c++
> > standard, do not support private, public, or 
protected features that
> > classes do. In other words:
>
> Wrong.  "struct" and "class" are *identical* except 
for the default
> protection.  There are no other differences between 
structs and
> classes.  Even the parser doesn't treat them 
differently.

True. They are "so identical" that it is possible to 
have methods inside structs. People are so used to C 
conventions that this feature is usually ignored, and
many get to think it is not allowed by C++!

ciao
  Giacomo

------------------------------------------------------
Giacomo Degli Esposti - pad2369 AT iperbole DOT bologna DOT it

- Raw text -