I told myself that I wasn't going to deal with this further, but this cannot go unanswered.

It was your assertion that in C++ that a struct and a class are the same (MESSAGE#429323). In fact, in that thread you even admitted the differnce. To justify this you've gone to lengths to demonstrate how this can be accomplished. The question that must be asked is, "Do your samples support your contention that a struct and a class are the same?" The answer is an emphatic, "NO!" Then what do they show? They demonstrate only that you can use a struct to "simulate" a class. Using one thing to simulate another does not prove that they are the "same". This is the fundamental flaw in your argument.

The heart of the problem is that they are fundamentally different by defintion. As I pointed out earlier, how things are defined is one of the cornerstones that makes computing possible. If you don't understand this, if you don't get this, then further discussion is pointless. I do grasp this and quite a bit more.

The bottom line is that if you feel you've proven your point, fine. If you feel that you're right and I'm wrong, fine. Go right ahead. Doesn't bother me in the least. I'll be perfectly content in my beliefs in this area. EOS. EOT.