Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!andante!alice!bs
From: bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: typedef's of classes
Summary: legal
Keywords: c++, typedef, class
Message-ID: <8134@alice.UUCP>
Date: 26 Aug 88 01:15:04 GMT
References: <414@gt-eedsp.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 55

In article <414@gt-eedsp.UUCP>, baud@gt-eedsp.UUCP (Kurt Baudendistel) writes:
> if i have defined a class CLASS and create a typedef of it, such as
> 
>   typedef CLASS NEW_CLASS;
> 
> i would think that i could use NEW_CLASS just like i use CLASS, with
> constructors, etc.  is this true? my gnu c++ compiler thinks that this
> is the case. it says that 
> 
>   CLASS a(5);				// legal constructor
>   NEW_CLASS b(5);			// illegal constructor
> 
> is this the same as at&t cfront? is this the way c++ is supposed to
> work? does this make sense?
> 
> i think that this should be a legal construct, since this is how i use
> typedef in c.  what do you think?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kurt Baudendistel [GRA McClellan]
> Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA  30332
> USENET: ...!{allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,ulysses}!gatech!gt-eedsp!$me
> INTERNET: $me@gteedsp.gatech.edu

What you do looks OK to me and this works with cfront (aka the
AT&T C++ translator)

class x{public: x(int); };
typedef struct x X ;
x a(1);
X b(1);
f() {
	x(1);
	X(1);
}

but why would you want to do this?

l
i
n
e

e
a
t
e
r
f
o
d
d
e
r