Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!sunburn!dsouza
From: dsouza@mcc.com [Desmond D'Souza]
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Private Derivation and Access Control
Message-ID: <4053@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 89 20:57:54 GMT
Sender: news@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM
Reply-To: dsouza@mcc.com
Distribution: na
Organization: MCC VLSI-CAD Program, Austin, TX
Lines: 30


According to (my reading of) Lippman on Private Derivation, p.318

	"The class designer can exempt individual members of the base
	class from the effects of private derivation"

i.e. selected members of the private base class may be promoted 
in visibility in the derived class. One simply names the base members 
in the :public (or :protected) section of the derived class.

The example provided, however, says that this specification cannot
specify the return type or signature of the base member function.

Is it then true that for an OVERLOADED member function in the base 
class, exempting that member by name in the derived class will
exempt all overloaded base instances of it ? I would want it to.

e.g. 
class B { public: f(); f(int); } ;

class D { public: B::f ; } ;

// Are  B::f() and B::f(int)  visible to clients of D ? 


Thanks
Desmond.

 Desmond D'Souza, MCC CAD Program | ARPA: dsouza@mcc.com | Phone: [512] 338-3324
 Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 | UUCP: {uunet,harvard,gatech,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!dsouza