From: Schoenborn, Oliver (Oliver.Schoenborn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-05 06:22:58
> From: Dave Abrahams
> > From: "Larry Evans" <jcampbell3_at_[hidden]>
> > >David B. Held wrote:
> > >
> > > >Deriving from ptr<T const> is a weird beast. For instance, if you
> > > >T* p_; in ptr<T const>, for some reason, it is not visible in ptr<T>,
> > >
> > >I'm totally surprised!
> It's a dependent base class. A conforming compiler will only
> find it with qualification, e.g.
I'm totally surprised too. This means that gcc 2.96, 3.2, and SGI's MipsPro
CC are non standard in this regard, which is possible I guess. That said, I
still don't see why the code that Dave Held wrote would require this->p_
(how is ptr<T const> a dependent base class?).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk