home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.lang.c++:11484 comp.std.c++:941
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!motsrd!news
- From: shang@corp.mot.com (David (Lujun) Shang)
- Subject: Re: Language extensions for run-time type identification
- Message-ID: <1992Jul24.133712.19462@cadsun.corp.mot.com>
- Sender: news@cadsun.corp.mot.com
- Reply-To: shang@corp.mot.com
- Organization: Motorola, Inc., Software Research and Development, Rolling Meadows, IL. 60008
- References: <1992Jul23.200803.22371@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 13:37:12 GMT
- Lines: 13
-
- In article <1992Jul23.200803.22371@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
- (John MAX Skaller) writes:
- > IMHO making struct == class (baring access defaults) was a poor
- > decision. I would much rather 'struct' MEANT C-compatible.
- >
-
- I couldn't agree more. Making struct == class brings about a big obstacle to
- explore further the concept of class. Structure should not have the inheritance
- hierarchy, otherwise we make a great trouble in trading off between the
- C-compatible struct and the class-equivalent struct when the class concept
- should be enhanced in C++.
-
- David Shang
-