Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihwpt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihwpt!crocker
From: crocker@ihwpt.UUCP (ron crocker)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Structs/classes
Message-ID: <742@ihwpt.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Mar-86 11:55:40 EST
Article-I.D.: ihwpt.742
Posted: Mon Mar  3 11:55:40 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Mar-86 05:17:06 EST
References: <47900002@ccvaxa>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27

> 
> .... I have one question, though: since classes are essentially structs,
> and structs can have member functions and private/public parts, why bother 
> creating separate classes at all? Why not just extend the struct syntax
> with the things you've got for classes - derivation, etc.?

"By definition, a struct is simply a class with all members public,
that is
	struct s { ...
is simply shorthand for
	class s { public: ...
		
Structures are used when data hiding is inappropriate."

By the above definition, a "struct" type is not necessary per se,
and no one is forcing you to use them.  I think that they add to the
"compatibility" of C and C++.  By calling something a "class"
implies the use of the data hiding features; calling something a
"struct" implies openness.

Ron Crocker
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville-Wheaton Road
Naperville, IL  60566
(312) 979-4051

Views expressed are mine and not my employers.