🚀 go-pugleaf

> 
> .... I have one question, though: since classes are essentially structs,
> and structs can have member functions and private/public parts, why bother 
> creating separate classes at all? Why not just extend the struct syntax
> with the things you've got for classes - derivation, etc.?

"By definition, a struct is simply a class with all members public,
that is
	struct s { ...
is simply shorthand for
	class s { public: ...
		
Structures are used when data hiding is inappropriate."

By the above definition, a "struct" type is not necessary per se,
and no one is forcing you to use them.  I think that they add to the
"compatibility" of C and C++.  By calling something a "class"
implies the use of the data hiding features; calling something a
"struct" implies openness.

Ron Crocker
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville-Wheaton Road
Naperville, IL  60566
(312) 979-4051

Views expressed are mine and not my employers.