DM> and in some cases its not quite as good. (The
 DM> classes aren't as fast as C struct's)
 BP> Could you prove that? struct is a sysnonym to class, so I think you say 
is
 BP> impossible. :)
Well classes with member functions aren't as fast to access as their 
counterparts in C with only data members.  And C++ struct and class are 
synonyms.  In C a struct can't have functions :)
 SS> void foo( int& HeyIMagicallyAlterYourVariableWithoutTellingYou )
 DM> It can be avoided.
 BP> Yes it can. But one who want to avoit it should better stay in C.
Well I commit the "sin" of mixing.  I use C syntax with C++ functions and 
Classes.
 DM> char *i;
 DM> i = (char *) malloc (30 * sizeof (char));
 BP> Is that C++?  What about
 BP> char * i = new char[30];  // Are you payed a cent per character? :->
Thats the C++ version.  But as I already said I commit the sin of mixing soo 
often :)
 BP> Actually in C you can do all the old C casts but also 
 BP> have other options. One is similar to old cast, just another syntax:
Well good.  I'm not that great at C++ yet soo...
 BP> long l = long(myInt);  // really looks like conversion function
Indeed it does.
 BP> And the new restricted cast operators. they are ugly to 
 BP> read and write, but can save you bugs. Have you ever casted away  BP> 
constness unintentionally? Now this can be cought at compile time.
No I have never casted away constness.. but heres the classic example:
printf ((char *) M_BINK_BANNER);
I think that was the line.  Its from the Dragon Binky source. (My own pet 
version of binkleyterm) M_BINK_BANNER was a #define of an int :( the proper 
line is:
printf (MSG_TXT (M_BINK_BANNER));
ANd it works.
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------