Re: [Boost-users] [test] testing protected/private methods out of test suits

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [test] testing protected/private methods out of test suits
From: Daniel Krügler (dsp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-23 01:41:54

Zeljko Vrba wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:44:01PM -0600, Robert Mecklenburg wrote:
>> I would swear that the standard indicated that public/private had no
>> effect on visibility, just accessibility.  That is, changing a
>> symbol's access from private to public did not change the meaning of a
>> program.  Stroustrup uses such language in the D&E of C++.
>>
> I recall somewhat vaguely a similar discussion on comp.lang.c++.moderated
> where the conclusion was that redefining keywords such as public/private
> via preprocessor macros leads to undefined behavior.  I don't think that
> MS violates the standard with this particular behavior.

Correct. This is worded in C++03, [lib.macro.names]/2:

"[..] Nor shall such a translation unit define macros for names
lexically identical to keywords."

The current working paper has refined this in [macro.names]/2:

"A translation unit shall not #define or #undef names lexically
identical to keywords."

Greetings from Bremen,

Daniel