Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!morocco.Eng.Sun.COM!landauer
From: landauer@morocco.Eng.Sun.COM (@morocco.eng [Doug Landauer])
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: protected derivation
Keywords: access specifiers, derivation
Message-ID: <12169@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 24 Apr 91 20:42:10 GMT
References: <1991Apr23.030507.17185@csi.uottawa.ca>
Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 14

> [The] <access-specifier> for base classes in the definition of derived
> classes [ ... includes "protected" ... ]
> However, there is no mention of the semantics ...
> I suggest either to adopt such a rule or to remove protected from the
> corresponding syntax.

The latest Draft working paper accepted by X3J16 does describe the meaning
of this construct; at also includes some examples showing its use.

In other words, yes, it is expected that protected derivation will
be ("always has been", say some) a part of the C++ language.
-- 
Doug Landauer - Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Languages - landauer@eng.sun.com
    Matt Groening on C++:  "Our language is one great salad."