Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C needs to evolve
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:23:47 +1300
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <f8gnfjFrrtU3@mid.individual.net>
References: <4d2a3d73-c48a-46e4-96ae-034dc6ae7ea1@googlegroups.com> <4adb49b3-1758-472b-9b32-47b7318e559d@googlegroups.com> <ad7cbaac-9635-4284-8dda-177942d0bb16@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net /xMBctjeZ4v3/83ewDgURwWZ6eZFs2enXJxVsrH5lkmjB1wUY7
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0igMRJ6c5Tn0pieIJIwhPXGnZZY=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <ad7cbaac-9635-4284-8dda-177942d0bb16@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:123738

On 12/03/2017 08:51 AM, Thiago Adams wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:50:45 PM UTC-2, zaca...@gmail.com wrote:
>> To be clear, I don't necessarily want classes, but I do like structure, for example:
>>
>> void myFunction( void );
>>
>> struct {
>>      const char* data;
>>      void (*func)( void );
>> } myStruct = {"Hello World!", myFunction};
>>
>> void myFunction(void)
>> {
>>      printf("%s\n", myStruct.data);
>> }
>>
>> but I would like to be able to do it without so much hassle...
> 
> 
> What I dislike about C++ member functions is the asymmetry
> caused on the syntax.
> 
> We can use:
> 
>     obj.Function() ;
>     or
>     Function(Obj);

So which would you prohibit, objects with members or functions accepting 
object as parameters?  I can't think of a language which supports OO and 
not both.

> Trying to put everything as member functions is a bad
> idea. see
> 
> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/how-non-member-functions-improve-encapsu/184401197

Does anyone dispute that?

The rest is best discussed down the hall..

-- 
Ian