This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] simplify <bits/uses_allocator.h>
- From: Daniel Krügler <daniel dot kruegler at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 00:52:24 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] simplify <bits/uses_allocator.h>
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140601223536 dot GR6953 at redhat dot com> <CAGNvRgBkP1CtCHN3H-1qxZ-L=+jpDZwV_6JkkdHRm4Ws-c1n6A at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140601225015 dot GS6953 at redhat dot com>
2014-06-02 0:50 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely <email@example.com>:
> 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.