This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch] simplify <bits/uses_allocator.h>

2014-06-02 0:50 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely <>:
> On 02/06/14 00:46 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
>> Some of the changes remove the explicit access-specifier (public) from
>> base classes, such as
>> : public false_type
>> =>
>> : false_type
>> In the affected examples this does not introduce a change of meaning
>> (because the classes are declared as structs), but my understanding
>> had been in the past that base class access specifiers should always
>> been provided in gcc code bases to make the code robust against
>> potential refactoring.
>> Is this simply an incorrect understanding of mine that is not based by
>> the gcc coding styles? I thought that Paolo taught me the
>> "explicit-access-style", but I might err.
> I consider them to be redundant clutter, but I didn't realise we had
> such a rule, so I'm happy to put the access-specifiers back.

My formulation was intentionally tentative, because I never searched
for that coding rule. Maybe Paolo could help to clarify.

- Daniel

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]