From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-10 14:54:14
At 12:16 PM 2/8/2002, Darin Adler wrote:
>On 2/8/02 9:10 AM, "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I'm annoyed too, but I wouldn't mind adding "private" where neccessary
>> keep the brasswork shiny.
Same here. I'd rather have compilers err on the side of caution when it
comes to warnings in cases like this where there is an obvious way to
(private) to make the warning go away.
>I found 12 different places where this would need to be added -- 2 or 3
>them in struct definitions, so the inheritance is currently public in
>cases (not that that matters). Is it OK if I do it throughout instead of
>waiting for individual library authors to do each one?
Go ahead, AFAIC.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk