Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #478Re: Protected base classes
From: Jim ADCOCK
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 1990 18:52
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 1990 18:52
20 lines
1228 bytes
1228 bytes
In article <5026@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> mneerach@c.inf.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) writes:
>
>class B:protected A {
> ...
>};
>
>To my surprise, my compiler (based on CFront 2.0) refused to compile this.
>The ARM doesn't seem to be clear about this: The syntax seems to allow it,
>but the text and examples don't mention it.
Existing compilers are not reliable indicators of the fine-grained details
of the standardization effort. E&S is. Compilers claiming "2.1"
compatibility may be pretty close to E&S.
>My question is: If protected base classes are indeed illegal, why are they
>and what speaks against adding them to C++ ?
My understanding is that protected base classes will be allowed.
Unfortunately, I cannot find the appropriate reference in E&S.
[Though I'm sure I read it somewhere....]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<57160@microsoft.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimadReferences:
<5026@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Protected base classes Message-ID: <57160@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 4 Sep 90 18:52:59 GMT References: <5026@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 20