Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!news
From: schmidt@zola.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Inheritance and static member functions
Message-ID: <1989Oct13.055104.21637@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 89 05:51:04 GMT
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu (Network News)
Reply-To: schmidt@zola.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt)
Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS
Lines: 43


  The following code illustrates an interesting situation arising from
the combination of inheritance and static member functions.

----------------------------------------
class foo
{
public:
  foo ();
  static int foobar ();
};

class bar : private foo
{
public:  
  bar ();
};

class baz : private bar
{
public:
  baz () 
    { 
      // Is this call legal?  In one sense it is illegal (if you follow
      // the inheritance hierarchy).  However, from another perspective
      // foo::foobar () is a call to a static member function that is
      // visible in the public section of class foo.
      foo::foobar (); 
    }
};
----------------------------------------

Does cfront 2.0 `do the right thing' here, i.e., does it conform to
the language definition?

thanks,
  
  Doug
--
Master Swordsman speak of humility;             | schmidt@ics.uci.edu (ARPA)
Philosophers speak of truth;                    | office: (714) 856-4034
Saints and wisemen speak of the Tao of no doubt;
The moon, sun, and sea speaks for itself. -- Hiroshi Hamada