This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [patch] simplify <bits/uses_allocator.h>
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Krügler <daniel dot kruegler at gmail dot com>
- Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 23:50:15 +0100
- 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>
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.