On Saturday 09 February 2008 18:23:24 Tim Niemueller wrote:
> Paul Black wrote:
> > Why not:
> > class SomeClass
> > {
> > public:
> > SomeClass();
> > // more stuff...
> > protected:
> > struct mylist_t {
> > mylist_t *next;
> > void *dataM
> > };
> > };
>
> Then I cannot use
> SomeClass::mylist_t *list
> but I would have to use
> struct SomeClass::mylist_t *list
> which is ugly and this is why I had the typedef in the first place.
That is only true in C. In C++, struct/union/enum/class names are
automatically typenames.
> I just wonder if this is indeed the intended behavior, typedef are not
> allowed as members,
I am not familiar; usually you see typedefs at the global or namespace scope,
and usually they follow the class or struct declaration.
-- Benjamin Kreuter
--
Message sent on: Sat Feb 9 18:29:30 EST 2008
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
