Of course, but I am providing the opinion as someone with experience in C++.Originally Posted by Programmer_P
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.Originally Posted by Programmer_P
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".Originally Posted by Programmer_P
See, what you are talking about are not the objects of the class. You are talking about the members of the class. 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?
No, you still have a destructor. In the absence of a user declared destructor, the compiler generates one for the class.Originally Posted by Programmer_P