On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 14:10 +0000, Andy Green wrote: > About ten years ago when I was struggling to understand what the C++ > deal was about, I realized after it crashed in on me what the benefits > were (the moment I understood how virtual functions worked in the memory > footprint) that I had been blindly reaching for some of the same > principles in my C for some time, eg, binding related data into structs, > composing structs with other more primitive structs at the start, making > the equivalent of constructor functions to prep a struct, using function > pointers and so on. I always thought your basic data type in C should be "array of struct" regardless of the actual elements you plan to use. Otherwise the semantics don't make sense when you start storing things in allocated or shared memory. You don't need C++ for that - it has been there from the beginning. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
