On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 01:04:33 +0100 Martijn Sipkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Hiesenbugs - The bugs that go away when you turn on debugging.