> class Base
> {
> int myint;
> }

> class Derived : public Base
> {
> int myint;
> }

>> class Base
>> {
>> int myint;
>> }

>> class Derived : public Base
>> {
>> int myint;
>> }

>Yes

>> I tried it and expected the compiler to complain but it didn't. Is the
>> compiler treating the second myint as merely a redeclaration of the
>> first?

>No.

>You are declaring a new member that has the name myint

>The member of the same name in the base class is still there, but you just
>cannot directly access it from the derived class by name only

>However you can access, for example, by prefixing the name with a class
>scope
>eg

>void Derived::foo() {
>    myint = 1;    // refers to myint in Derived
>    Base::myint = 2;    // refers to myint in Base
>}

>Its pretty much the same as function overloading .. the base class function
>still exists, but when you use the function name (without scope etc) you get
>the derived class version.  Of course, with functions, you also have the
>issue of virtual functions.  There is no such thing as a virtual data member
>though.

>The means that

>Derived* pDerived;
>Base* pBase;
>Derived x;
>pDerived = &x;
>pBase = &x;
>pDerived->myint = 1; // refers to myint in Derived
>pBase->myint = 1; // refers to myint in Base (even though pBase points to an
>object of type Derived)
>--
>Roger Onslow
>Software Developer
>See my articles at http://www.codeguru.com
>See the product I am working on at http://www.swishzone.com

>"Operator .. give me the number for 911" .. Homer Simpson