Yep, I know this. I'm certainly not disputing that fact...
Originally Posted by laserlight
The purpose of using a class instead of global functions, like mentioned in my last post, is so I can use the same objects across multiple functions.
Yes, and that's my point. These objects are not important. If they are not important, why create these objects? Why write this class when you can just write the functions directly? The class keyword (or struct, for that matter) does not magically add value to your program.
I know this. I was talking about the internal objects of the class. The default constructor doesn't create any internal heap objects in the class.
A constructor always creates an object of the class. But notice that I say that conceptually, the constructors of your class do not create objects of the class. This is confirmed by the nonsensical statement that "the default constructor doesn't".
Obviously, we're talking about two different things here. You were talking about objects of the class, and I thought you meant objects internal to the class, hence the correction...
Exactly. :) Obviously you were talking about the other one though...
See, what you are talking about are not the objects of the class. You are talking about the members of the class.
I already answered that question, and it does add value to the code, despite what you think without having even seen the code.
So, your claim that you were "thinking in terms of only two objects of the class" is suspect. Rather, you are just creating two objects of the class, but thinking in procedural terms. Therefore, these objects distract one from understanding the code, instead of enhancing the maintainability of the code. So why bother with this class when it does not add value to the code?
Yes, but that destructor wont do squat without any 'new' objects to delete...
No, you still have a destructor. In the absence of a user declared destructor, the compiler generates one for the class.