No Albert, the point is that you don't seem to get it. There is still a significant difference. The problem is that a struct was never intended to function as a class.

My problem is summarized by what used to be my sig:

"I hate definitions" - Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and numerous students failing Computer Science

The reason that computers work in the first place is the recursive "definition" of the state of a bit. Bytes are defined defined by the state of their bits and so on. Without precisely defining what these mean, it all falls down and goes "boom" just like your argument. Your argument fails because a struct isn't precisely like a class.

We can say that they share many similar characteristics, but to say they are the "same" is, in short, stupid, because they're not. So why continue with this waste of bandwidth unless you're deliberately trying to pick an argument with me? If you are, fine. I, however, won't waste any more of my time debating this.

I should point out, finally, that my argument is supported by Ivor Horton who has written numerous books on C++. If you have any further comments, please direct them to him.

PS: While your code might work on more recent versions of VC++, it won't VC++ 4.0 because of the private statement. And that version is a 32 bit compilter.