🚀 go-pugleaf

I am posting this for Martin Hitz, who does not have posting access to the net.
Please send e-mail replies to Martin at hitz@csi.UOttawa.CA.

Note: I checked that this is the neahiour of cfront 2.o also, and
indeed is explicitly stated in the ARM (p.255, section 11.6).  Martin
would like to raise the issue for discussion, hence I am posting to
comp.lang.c++ and comp.std.c++.

-- 
Anil A. Pal,	Silicon Graphics, Inc.
pal@sgi.com	(415)-335-7279

<===== Begin forwarded message =====>
From hitz@csi.UOttawa.CA  Tue Dec  4 09:47:20 1990
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 12:43:56 EST
From: hitz@csi.UOttawa.CA (Martin Hitz)
Message-Id: <9012041743.AA22998@csi.UOttawa.CA>
To: pal@csi.UOttawa.CA
Subject: comp.lang.c++
Status: RO

I find it awkward that it is possible (at least with g++ and Zortech 2.0)
to implicitely call a private member function via the virtual mechanism as
in the following example:

	class B {
	 public:
		virtual void f() { cout << "B\n"; }
	};

	class D: B {
		void f() { cout << "D\n"; }
	};

	main()
	{
		D  d;
		B& b = d;	
		b.f();		// prints "D"
	}

My opinion is that this shouldn't be possible, i.e. the compiler
should complain about the private version of f() in the derived 
class D.

Any comments?

Best regards, Martin Hitz

hitz@csi.UOttawa.CA