🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9300300.29980@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
|> 
|> As I noted in a previous article, I don't agree with Scott Turners belief
|> that base class subobjects are objects. To me, these are absurd 
|> consequences, and thus I conclude that the assumption used in deriving them
|> must be flawed.

Perhaps fjh would specify some of these "absurd consequences".  I
agree with Scott.  Base class subobjects are objects. Anything else 
would be incomprehensible to me.

Given a (pointer to) a base class subobject it is sometimes
necessary to find the containing derived class object. In the
past this conversion operation was necessary only for virtual
function call, but the semantics of C++ are best understood
by considering it a non-trivial operation.  In the future,
if RTTI is accepted, this may become an explicit user invocable
operation in some contexts.

   -- Jerry Schwarz