Re: Multiple suitable operators
On Jan 21, 4:54 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
* James Kanze:
On Jan 19, 5:01 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
* mathieu:
[...]
BTW, if you want to use both private and public parts, use class
rather than struct.
Because... ?
It's an established convention to indicate POD type by using
'struct'.
Established by whom?
Rather by "what". With some caveats a POD can be said to be
the C++ equivalent of a C "struct". The convention I referred
follows from that association.
I'm not saying it's a bad convention. Just that it's not widely
used.
Instead of a style guide, check out discussions about this, e.g.
<url:http://stackoverflow.com/questions/54585/when-should-you-use-a-class-...>
I've seen several different conventions --
my own is to declare struct when all of the data members are
public (even if some of the data members are e.g. std::string,
which means that it isn't a POD).
That's an "aggregate".
I know. But a lot of people (myself included) use the keyword
struct when defining one.
Add a constructor and you have That Thing For Which We Have No
Name. The Nameless Thing, a C++ specific class type.
I've also done that a lot: something starts out as an aggregate,
then it turns out that I don't need aggregate initialization,
but a couple of obvious constructors would be nice. So it stops
being an aggregate, but since all of its data members are still
public, it keeps the keyword struct. In the conventions I
usually use, of course.
I've also seen people
declaring interfaces "struct", when all of the members are
public (albeit pure virtual).
Yeah, it's in the nature of conventions that they're not
enforced, and that there can be many contradictory
conventions.
Which is really all I wanted to say. (With regards to the
original example, with, IIRC, private data, I don't know of any
widely used convention that would use struct for it.)
--
James Kanze