Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="JohnQ, post: 2933555"]
I'm concerned about blasting it around like a C struct. That and keeping the 
size the same.

Understood. That's what the constructor/copy constructor/assignment 
operator/destructor do as together: make classes (or structs) behave like 
built-in types.

See, now I think someone else said that those things would be generated 
(maybe they didn't). I had a feeling they weren't. So that's saying 
restricting those things in structs is unnecessary.

Hmmm... now if a class is defined just like a struct but has the class'

So I lose all guarantees about the layout and size of thing (it's 
implemenation-specific what the thing looks like in memory?)?

OK. So, don't use it like a C struct ever?

You see what I'm trying to indicate though right? That I want to be able to 
memcpy these things and the like, based upon their size.

It was actually a question. And when it deviates from that.  The moment I 
use 'private' in a struct, all bets are off? Meaning there could be 
something tucked between the start of the object in memory and the first 
data member?

What about a struct with constructor?
What about a struct with just POD data members?

OK. Someone else said that memberwise copy was done.

That's getting away from "struct with only POD data members", and that is 
what I'm really only concerned with.

John
[/QUOTE]

Verification