Re: [sv-bc] parameterized structures

Brad Pierce wrote:

> Are struct types really just syntactic sugar for a simple kind of class?
>
For C++ I think it's the other way round since class inheritance is just a
formal way to say one struct can overlay another. I hesitate to
comment on the relationship between structs and classes in SV.

>  
>
> 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?
>
What's the difference between this "parameterized" stuff and class 
templates?

Kev.

>  
>
> -- Brad
>