Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Protected base classes
Message-ID: <57160@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 4 Sep 90 18:52:59 GMT
References: <5026@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 20

In article <5026@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> mneerach@c.inf.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) writes:
>
>class B:protected A {
>   ...
>};
>
>To my surprise, my compiler (based on CFront 2.0) refused to compile this.
>The ARM doesn't seem to be clear about this: The syntax seems to allow it,
>but the text and examples don't mention it.

Existing compilers are not reliable indicators of the fine-grained details
of the standardization effort.  E&S is.  Compilers claiming "2.1" 
compatibility may be pretty close to E&S.

>My question is: If protected base classes are indeed illegal, why are they
>and what speaks against adding them to C++ ?

My understanding is that protected base classes will be allowed.  
Unfortunately, I cannot find the appropriate reference in E&S.
[Though I'm sure I read it somewhere....]