Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!sarima
From: sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Class scope and virtual functions
Message-ID: <22142@gryphon.COM>
Date: 12 Nov 89 16:50:49 GMT
References: <21847@gryphon.COM> <10935@csli.Stanford.EDU> <1989Nov7.073836.23166@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> <20130@brunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen)
Distribution: na
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 21

In article <20130@brunix.UUCP> kdu@iris.brown.edu (Kenneth Utting) writes:
>
>Regardless of the merits of using special keywords versus specifying the
>inherited class explicitly, what I find truly astonishing is that neither
>of the two C++ books I have (Stroustrup and Dewhurst & Stark) even mention
>this topic (how one method can call its inherited version). It is as though 
>the creators and developers of this language do not think this is something
>anyone would want to do (my belief, on the other hand, is that this is one
>of the most fundamental operations in object-oriented programming).
>
	This is why I posted the question.  Lippman's book does not mention
it either.  His book does discuss scope resolution though, and it seems to
imply that between::func() requires an explicit instance of func() in the
intermediate class.  At least two people have said that my example actually
works (one by email).   I like the idea of inherited::func() even better.
I hope that my approach is at least officially sanctioned so it won't go
away suddenly (unless 'inherited' is added).
-- 
Sarima Cardolandion			sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM
aka Stanley Friesen			rutgers!marque!gryphon!sarima
					Sherman Oaks, CA