From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-30 22:03:01
Maarten Kronenburg wrote:
>
> Here I disagree.
> The class represents the set, and an object of that class represents an
> element from that set,
> whether the set is employees and secretaries, or integers and unsigned
> integers.
>
If C++ classes represent only sets of data and not their behavior, then
there would not be any need for member functions. Neither would there be
any need for the distinction between public and private members.
One would only need structs and free functions that act on them.
But maybe this argument has gone on too long. You should just proceed as
you think best.