Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com> writes:
| Hi,
|
| I was surprised that a particular piece of code compiled
| (with gcc 2.96 and 3.2.3 on RedHat 7.3) and wanted a
| language lawyer to tell me if this code should have.
| The issue is that I accidentally made a type definition
| private when it was used as an argument to a public method.
|
| namespace N {
| class C {
| private:
| typedef int T1_t;
| protected:
| typedef int T2_t;
| public:
| C();
| ~C();
| int f1(T1_t); // private type used for public method
| int f2(T2_t); // protected type used for public method
| };
| }
|
| N::C::C() { ; }
| N::C::~C() { ; }
| int N::C::f1(T1_t x) { return x+1; }
| int N::C::f2(T2_t x) { return x+2; }
|
| Should this work?
Yes, the program is well-formed. Access control is applied to names,
and the check is done in their contexts of use. You may even be able
to call N::C::f1() with an argument of type int with no error.
| If so, what is the rationale for allowing it.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here.
The general philosophy is that you can use a name everywhere it is
visible and accessible. N::C::T1_t is usable and accessible in the
scope of N::C::f.