Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!bridge2!jarthur!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg
From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Local classes, are they worth it????
Summary: Local classes have a very restrictive definition. OK!
Message-ID: <1661@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 22 Feb 90 16:31:51 GMT
Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth
	(Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal)
Lines: 17

In article <58170004@hpcll05.HP.COM> pfaust@hpcll05.HP.COM (Paul Faust) writes:

  Local classes with the combination of the +d option give the illusion of
  Pascal style nested functions.  In cfront, if a local class defines member
  functions (with their bodies), the +d option will cause the function to 
  dumped out prior to the definition of the function currently being processed.
  Static members are properly hoisted out.  However, locals that are
  defined prior to the class are not accessible and cfront generates an error.

Reading Lippman on this subject makes it clear that local classes have been
officially burdened with enough restrictions to the effect that they don't
really implement a nested scope. This is appropriate -- you don;t really
want to have nested scopes in a language supposedly compatibl with C...
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk