Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Design Question
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-17 01:36:44
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 06/17/2010 01:16 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>> [...] But I don't understand why it failed in the first place.
>> [...] Why aren't they visible without the base class name from
>> *within* the combined class?
> In short: Your base classes are dependent types, so using anything from
> them (functions, types, templates, etc.) will have to be explicitly
> qualified (as you've discovered) or brought into the derived class'
> scope with a using declaration.
> In (not-so) long: For example,
Ugly, but I can see the reasoning behind it now. Thanks, to you and
Scott McMurray, and the person who sent a private e-mail referring me to
the same page (who I assume wishes to remain anonymous).
I can't tell from that page, but I assume that using the "standard"
method (i.e. specifying the full base class name before the function
name) will work on what that page calls "intermediate" and "CFront"
compilers as well? In other words, does anyone here know of any
compatibility problems caused by that, or by a "using" directive in the
class to do the same thing?
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----