From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: classes
Date: 6 Apr 2000 15:48:45 GMT
Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH)
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <8cibkt$ghq$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
References: <eeLF4.13555$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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de
X-Trace: nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 955036125 16954 137.226.32.75 (6 Apr 2000 15:48:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Apr 2000 15:48:45 GMT
Originator: broeker@
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Ken Power <iam AT not DOT you> wrote:
> Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:32:28 GMT, in comp.os.msdos.djgpp, Damian Yerrick
> <Bullcr_pd_yerrick AT hotmail DOT comRemoveBullcr_p> managed to squeak:

>>A class is like a struct with functions in it, right?

> Similar yes, but with 'added' features. AFAICR, structs, in the c++
> standard, do not support private, public, or protected features that
> classes do. 

Not true. Last time I read about it, 'struct' supports all the same
features in C++ as 'class'. The only difference between the two is the
two is the default protection status of members: for 'class', it's
'protected', for 'struct' it's 'public'. Mainly to stay compatible
with C code compiled as C++.

AFAICS, C++ doesn't really need the 'class' keyword at all.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.