> Presumably this would be classes in whatever sense the ABI would define them. Which could be defined in such a way that they can be mapped straightforwardly t

> Presumably this would be classes in whatever sense the ABI would define them. Which could be defined in such a way that they can be mapped straightforwardly to Rust structs and traits. Which would then not map straightforwardly to C++ classes, because the vtable pointer would be in the wrong spot. You can't have an ABI that makes two things that represent things in concretely different ways somehow resolve that inherent contradiction.