Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!morocco!landauer
From: landauer@morocco.Sun.COM (Doug Landauer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: classes within functions (was Re: Scoping Bug)
Message-ID: <134404@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 12 Apr 90 21:23:35 GMT
References: <36159@brunix.UUCP> <1283@crabcake>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: landauer@sun.UUCP (Doug Landauer)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 24

> Personally, I believe the local class in C++ is a kind of tradeoff of
> limited levels of lexical scoping (at most two levels) and consistency
> with C programming.

1. The term "local class" is ambiguous (can mean class-within-function,
   or class-within-class), and should not be used.

2. The "local class" you're talking about (class-within-function) is a
   direct result of C compatibility (struct-within-function must be
   allowed) versus self-consistency (struct == class { public: ... }).
   It should not be used (except in existing C code).

3. The other "local class" (class-within-class) changes meanings
   drastically as of cfront 2.1 and/or X3J16 and/or BS's forthcoming
   book, so it too should not be used (at least wait until next year).

Conclusion:  The ambiguous term "local class" is an
    epithet in C++ any way you translate it.
--
Doug Landauer - Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Languages - landauer@eng.sun.com
    Matt Groening on C++:  "Our language is one great salad."
-- 
Disclaimer:     I was just kidding about not using them.
		They're just a few more mines to step in.