Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 10:59:36 08/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2004 at 08:01:49, Tord Romstad wrote: >And the only practical difference compared to using structs and functions >with these structs (or pointers to them) as arguments is that I forced >to use the x.y() syntax rather than the y(x) syntax which I like so much >better. > >As long as I don't need inheritance or functions which behave differently >depending on the type of their arguments, I don't see why I would want >classes. You have a very narrow, ignorant view of C++ if you think the "only practical difference" is syntax of calling a member function vs. a normal function, and that the only other differences are inheritance or overloaded functions. >I also prefer to partition my source code into many small files, where each >file contains just a small number of closely related functions. I do the exact same thing, and that is the exact reason why I use classes. They allow you much more control over the approach you describe. >I don't see >what this has to do with classes. It seems like to completely unrelated >issues to me. Given your first statement, it isn't suprising that you don't see the connection. You don't understand the basic benefits of C++.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.