Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Well,
>
> seems GCC 3.4 isn't compliant with C++...
:)
> Raphaël Enrici wrote:
>
>> > EVT_CHECKBOX(XRCID("chkEnabled"), dlgJob::OnChange)
>> > EVT_COMBOBOX(XRCID("cbJobclass"), dlgJob::OnChange)
>>
> <snip>
>> class A
>> {
>> public:
>> void pub_func();
>> protected:
>> void prot_func();
>> private:
>> void priv_func();
>> };
>>
>> class B : public A
>> {
>> public:
>> void foo()
>> {
>> &A::pub_func; // OK, pub_func is accessible through A
>> &A::prot_func; // error, cannot access prot_func through A
>> &A::priv_func; // error, cannot access priv_func through A
>>
>> &B::pub_func; // OK, pub_func is accessible through B
>> &B::prot_func; // OK, can access prot_func through B (within B)
>> &B::priv_func; // error, cannot access priv_func through B
>> }
>> };
>
>
> This is plain crazy. So I may call A::prot_func(), but not retrieve it's
> address? What if I also have a B::prot_func?
> Sorry, this is a *bug*.
Seems gcc team does not agree...
Can you take a look at these please and tell what you understand ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15308
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11174
They are the ones coming to the conclusion quoted before.
Can you tell me where I can find the C++ spec they are all talking about
please ?
Regards,
Raphaël
