From 5161897464084988961 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,c503251d87cf889e X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-19 17:25:29 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!wizard.pn.com!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: size of a "empty" class Message-ID: <9426216.7817@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia References: Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 06:20:09 GMT Lines: 11 tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes: >The current decision is against the spirit of C, which is not paying for >overhead that you don't use. I agree with you. But I've long since given up arguing about this one. It was a quite deliberate decision and there is basically no chance of it being reversed :-(. -- Fergus Henderson - fjh@munta.cs.mu.oz.au