Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Typedef inside of a class definition. Message-ID: Date: 9 May 90 17:46:47 GMT References: <2647C248.28683@paris.ics.uci.edu> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California. Lines: 28 In-reply-to: rfg@ics.uci.edu's message of 9 May 90 07:10:00 GMT In article <2647C248.28683@paris.ics.uci.edu> rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette) writes: I have it on good authority however that all such things ought to be allowed at some (unspecified) point in the future. At that time, nested types will become like other categories of members (i.e. data members, function members, and enumeral members) and access-specifiers will apply. Scope resolution via :: will operate for type members just like for other categories of members. All this talk on typedefs reminded me to ask a couple of things about quirks that I've run into, but not explored enough to understand. 1. Does C++ treat typedef'ed types as derived types from a parent, base type? For instance, are there quirks in casting variables back and forth between a typedef'ed type and its equivalent base type? 2. Conceptually, why do people use typedefs? Are they just there to "beautify" code with better names or do they serve some deeper purpose? Does C++ enforce anything where typedefs are concerned to help this conceptual purpose? Thanx -- =================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mt. View, CA 94043 =================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"