4 ms·

The code sample still isn't equivalent. Now you have yet another pointer, which implies another allocation, another source of possible memory leaks and mistakes

The code sample still isn't equivalent. Now you have yet another pointer, which implies another allocation, another source of possible memory leaks and mistakes, and a separate memory space that will hurt the cache. > Those are implementation details which are deliberately being hidden. I know they're being hidden deliberately, but in C++ "private" doesn't break malloc (new), copies by value or sizeof. Or stack allocation, to add to the list. > They are as incompatible with code inlining as public/private modifiers in C++ are. That is, LTO is your best friend here. public/private aren't incompatible with inlining in C++. That is, you can call class functions that access private members and the compiler can inline those functions. Also, LTO is not always enabled by default, and doesn't always inline the things you want it to inline. > Also, have you ever tried to maintain binary compatibility with several versions of a third-party C++ library that keeps adding/removing private fields to/from its classes? I mentioned binary compatibility as one of the reasons one might want to do this. However, if you have a third party that doesn't care about API compatibility I doubt struct fields are the only thing they're going to change constantly.

skribanto 3y ago
Maybe have your public fields defined as a second struct, and then you can cast the pointer to your struct to the concrete struct that has all the public fields. This has the restriction that all public fields must be at the start, and you must make sure to maintain the same order between the two structs. At this point though, I think I honestly would prefer setters/getters. struct MyClassPublic { int x; int y; ... } /* using it */ MyClass *myclass = myclass_create(); ((MyClassPublic *)myclass)->x = 5;

skribanto 3y ago

Maybe have your public fields defined as a second struct, and then you can cast the pointer to your struct to the concrete struct that has all the public fields. This has the restriction that all public fields must be at the start, and you must make sure to maintain the same order between the two structs. At this point though, I think I honestly would prefer setters/getters. struct MyClassPublic { int x; int y; ... } /* using it */ MyClass *myclass = myclass_create(); ((MyClassPublic *)myclass)->x = 5;