Structs / Records in Java

[Rick]

Hi,

We all know that Java has classes but how about basic storage objects like
structs? C and C++ have Structs, Pascal has Records, Visual Basic has Types
etc. How about Java?

Greetings,
Rick

[Jonas Kongslund]

Rick wrote:

Hi,

We all know that Java has classes but how about basic storage objects like
structs? C and C++ have Structs, Pascal has Records, Visual Basic has
Types etc. How about Java?

Java does not support structs and records. Use classes instead.

--
Jonas Kongslund

[Rick]

Ok, thats clear. Thanks!

Rick

[Stewart Gordon]

While it was 3/11/03 10:10 am throughout the UK, Jonas Kongslund
sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:

<snip>

Java does not support structs and records.

<snip>

Yes it does. It just calls them classes, and greatly expands upon their
functionality.

Even in C++, a struct _is_ a class. There, the struct keyword just
serves for backward compatibility and/or syntactic sugar depending on
your point of view.

Stewart.

--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

[Amey Samant]

"Rick" <as******@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f***********************@news.xs4all.nl>...

Ok, thats clear. Thanks!

Rick

hey
structs in C++ are just classes with default access specifier as
public (otherwise there is no differnec in class in C++ & a struct in
C++)
thus if you need to store only data, java does not force you to have
methods in class
for eg-: while creating data structures you can create class for Node
class Node
{
int data;
Node next;
}
this is equivalent to structs .... isnt it ?

regards
amey

[Kenneth Rose]

Amey Samant wrote:

class Node
{
int data;
Node next;
}
this is equivalent to structs .... isnt it ?

Nope... default access for instance variables is protected, not public.
Should be:

class Node
{
public int data;
public Node next;
}

/<en

[Rick]

I'm not 100 % sure but I don't think you may say a struct is the same as a
class. Of course, they both can be used for storing data. Classes are some
sort of advanced struct types, based on structs (since OOP languages like
Java and C++ languages came after non-object-orientated languages like C
which already had structs that time). So, they won't differ that much but
it's the same as :
"A lion is a beast but a beast is not a lion." (what a stupid example :| ).

It doesn't matter really much, I can live with the Java classes, but I was
just curious. Or maybe I was lazy because using structs if a little bit
simpler because you don't have to create them like classes.

Greetings,
Rick

[Amey Samant]

Stewart Gordon <sm*******@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bo**********@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk>...

hi stewart

Even in C++, a struct _is_ a class.
There, the struct keyword just
serves for backward compatibility and/or syntactic sugar depending on
your point of view.

no structs in C++ are different than class (the only difference is in
class by default access specifier is private whereas in structs it is
public)
otherwise they are same
regards
amey

[Stewart Gordon]

While it was 4/11/03 10:01 am throughout the UK, Amey Samant sprinkled
little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:

<snip>

no structs in C++ are different than class (the only difference is in
class by default access specifier is private whereas in structs it is
public)

<snip>

I didn't say that the C++ keywords 'struct' and 'class' were synonyms.
I merely meant that by defining a struct, you are defining a class, and
it just saves having to put public: at the top.

Although it isn't enforced by the language, it remains common practice
(IINM) to use 'struct' for C-style structs, and 'class' when you want to
use the functionality of a class.

Basically,

struct Qwert {

means exactly the same as

class Qwert {
public:

and would compile to precisely the same.

Stewart.

--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
on the 'group where everyone may benefit.