Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!bs
From: bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Class scope and virtual functions
Summary: it works
Message-ID: <10113@alice.UUCP>
Date: 10 Nov 89 02:50:08 GMT
References: <21847@gryphon.COM> <10935@csli.Stanford.EDU> <1989Nov7.073836.23166@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 31



 > keith@csli.Stanford.EDU (Neil Hunt) writes:
 > 
 > >In article <21847@gryphon.COM> sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen) writes:
 > 
 > >>	A simplified example follows:
 > >>class base { virtual int func(); };
 > >>class between: public base { // no redef of func(), so use base::func() };
 > >>class derived: public between { int func(); };
 > >>int derived::func() {
 > >>	between::func();		// I think this is illegal
 > >>}

 > >This is certainly permitted in AT&T cfront 1.2; I have used it in
 > >several cases.
 > >It is certainly desirable.
 > >If it went away in 2.0, that seems like a bug to me!

It works - as always. The only thing I see wrong with the (condenced) example
is the misuse ofthe // in the second line and the fact  that base::func() is
private. Fixing that I get this:

class base { virtual int func(); };
class between: public base { // no redef of func(), so use base::func() };
class derived: public between { int func(); };
int derived::func() {
	between::func();		// I think this is illegal
}

which compiles just fine.