Technically, in that the C++ spec allows it, yes, it's C++. However, I find such definitions to be of little practical use, although frequently in the workplace

Technically, in that the C++ spec allows it, yes, it's C++. However, I find such definitions to be of little practical use, although frequently in the workplace I sit and wait while someone satisfies their need to carefully divide the world up into precise, clear, exacting and useless definitions before we can get on with doing something useful - the industry just seems to attract that; often they don't care about trashing all those lines immediately afterwards, so long as everyone acknowledged the lines. That said, the discussion about how many layers there are in a model of networking and what they're named rendered some people unable to do anything for the rest of the day. Colloquially and practically, I might suggest that it demonstrates that the programmer may be dangerously thinking in C with little lumps of data as their classes. The programmer is thinking and coding in C, with some classes, that they then feed to a C++ compiler. People were doing it like that back in the nineties, when what we think of as "modern C++" didn't exist.