Aggregates & associations

[Bruce Adams]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:54:56 -0000, Jarrett Billingsley  
<kb3ctd2 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 at yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:op.t3j6ntq1xikks4 at lionheart.cybernetics...
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:53:43 -0000, Daniel Keep
> <daniel.keep.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ------------------
> What is really needed is a sensible way of saying "this is a value"  
> versus
> "this is a reference" as a qualifier on the type.
> ------------------
>
> I'm just going to tell you what Walter would (and has, several times): in
> C++, 95% of the time you design a class to be _either_ a value type _or_  
> a
> reference type, not both, but of course there's no way to restrict the  
> use
> thereof to one kind or the other.
>
That's an explanation for struct versus class but not the more general case
including memory layout and calling conventions.

> Don't shoot the messenger.
[bang!]

Whether you use values or references 95% of the time isn't an issue if you  
focus on
semantics (of program behaviour). Most of the time is going to be about  
optimisation
in terms of both speed and memory layout. However, I dislike the idea of  
having that 5%
inaccessible to the language.
I mean 95% of the time I don't need floating point numbers would it be  
okay to not
support them?

>
> (side note: absolutely _everyone_ who uses Opera as their newsreader,  
> their
> posts don't quote correctly in OE...)
>
Presumably because outlook doesn't follow RFCs properly. Your voting  
buttons don't show
up too well on my linux box either, :). (or your wacky decision to have  
reply to all reply to yourself as well)