Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!lll-winken!unixhub!shelby!neon!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Class instance variables (was Re: inheriting statics)
Message-ID: <1990Nov18.023608.5339@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 18 Nov 90 02:36:08 GMT
References: <1990Nov13.072057.18707@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <1990Nov14.212657.5671@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <11936@life.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 15

In article <11936@life.ai.mit.edu>, rpk@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Robert Krajewski) writes:
|> Hmm.  At first I was thinking, ``Well, you really can't class instance
|> variables with the current C++ model because there really isn't a
|> run-time expression of classes in C++.'' But if you have any virtual
|> functions in a class, there *is* a per-class thing that lives at
|> run-time -- its table of virtual functions.  So maybe one could
|> overload (!) the Vtable concept, and use negative offsets to the
|> VTable pointer for class instance variables, and then just add
|> inherited class instance variables before the superclass.
|> 
|> Just a thought, mind you...
Interesting idea. How about a new kind of class member: virtual static?
-- 
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu