Re: [boost] [boost.test] Visibility problem in fixed_mapping.hpp

From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-12 12:07:13

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 05:47:29PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:36:32PM +0200, Markus Sch?pflin wrote:
> 
> > In my efforts to make boost.test compile with tru64cxx65 I came about 
> > the following issue.
> > 
> > Currently, class fixed_mapping contains a private member called 
> > elem_type which is later on used in the inline definition of an 
> > operator() contained in two inline structs.
> > 
> > class fixed_mapping
> > {
> >   typedef ... elem_type;
> > 
> >   struct p1 : public ...
> >   {
> >     bool operator()(elem_type const &x, ...) { ... }
> >   }
> > };
> > 
> > My compiler complains that elem_type is inaccessible in the definition 
> > of operator() and I think it is right to complain.
> 
> There's a defect report about this. The proposed resolution says that
> nested classes should have the same access rights as member functions,
> but it hasn't been approved yet IIRC.

DRs 45 and 10 are the ones that apply. Both are WP status.

jon

-- 
"Programming today is a race between software engineers
 striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs,
 and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots.
 So far, the Universe is winning."
	- Rich Cook