[svick]

> While writing it I needed something that would be 'just data' without any additional 'functionality' attached to it, so I naturally reached for `struct`, given that it exists in the language. The .NET guys asked why it was not a `class` instead. See, somewhere deep inside they felt that not wrapping everything in a `class` is wrong on some fundamental level.

The difference between a class and a struct in C# is not the same as between a class and a struct in C++. In C#, structs can definitely be useful, but also have some gotchas, so they're mostly used only in performance-critical parts of the code.

If you visit a foreign tribe, I think you should listen to the locals, unless you are really certain your way of doing things is better in the local context.

[jgilias]

Yes, of course, I applied 'when in Rome' a lot.

In this case though, the struct usage was completely in line with C# documentation regarding what structs are for. I wasn't trying to write C++ in C#. But hey, I do agree that code should be idiomatic to the particular community such that it doesn't feel out of place! In that case the struct did become a class.

Edit: Just re-read C# documentation on structs. Yes, it absolutely made sense to have a value type there. As in, the documentation mentions the use case almost verbatim.