Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mtx5a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akguc!mtunh!mtuni!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!esg
From: esg@mtx5a.UUCP (ed gokhman)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Structs/classes
Message-ID: <1232@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 11:03:02 EST
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1232
Posted: Thu Mar  6 11:03:02 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 08:32:52 EST
References: <47900002@ccvaxa>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 12

> 
> Just finished reading bs's book (which is definitely not bs) and enjoyed it 
> very much. 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.?

Structs do not have private parts. Other then that the question is
valid, except that I formulate it this way:

Structs are subset of classes. Why to have structs at all and
not to use classes for both and call them structs ?