Mumble. In as sense this is reasonable. In C++, a "struct" is essentially just a class with all members being public. As I mentioned before, I don't think the extapolation of parameterized classes to parameterized structs is much of a leap. I think that the equivalence rules need to be the same as for parameterized classes although given that there are no static data members it is less obvious that we need to distinguish otherwise structurally identical parameterized structs. Not a big deal either way; for consistency I think I'd want to follow the same equivalence rules as implied by parameterized classes. Gord. Brad Pierce wrote: > Are struct types really just syntactic sugar for a simple kind of class? > > > > If so, could we explicitly define structs in terms of classes and get > the proposed parameterized struct types for free from the existing > definition of parameterized classes? > > > > -- Brad > > > > > > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.comReceived on Thu Jun 15 23:05:21 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 15 2006 - 23:05:29 PDT