5 Feb
2003
5 Feb
'03
9:50 p.m.
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 01:04:33 +0100
Martijn Sipkema <msipkema(a)sipkema-digital.com> wrote:
You are not forced to define the private data members
and functions at the
same time as the public ones in C++. The way to handle this is to put the public
interface in a pure virtual class:
In my opinion (please note that this IS an opinion) the method you propose
is at least as ugly as any other way of keeping a class's private data members
private. IMO, using C and doing
typedef void Object ;
Object * Object_new (/* parameters */) ;
int method_1 (Object *object, /* parameters */) ;
void Object_delete (void) ;
and then using a struct (return a pointer to it from Object_new()) in the
implementation file is neater and works better.
If you think C++ is great, then you are entitled to your opinion. In my
experience, the C++ boosters are far pushier with their form of religion
than the people who prefer C to C++.
I think most of the arguments in the article are not
valid,
Most of the arguments or just the ones relating to C++? I did talk about
stuff other than C++ in that article.
It can't hurt for to also hear some positive
comments on C++ occasionally
though...
I think C++ gets more that its fair share of the lime light. I am simply
trying to show that
1) C++ is not the only solution.
2) OO can be done in Standard C.
3) Some people (me included) might prefer doing OO programing in C
rather than C++.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Hiesenbugs - The bugs that go away when you turn on debugging.