Skip to content

[class.access.base] No cv-qualification for access to inherited members#5068

Open
frederick-vs-ja wants to merge 1 commit into
cplusplus:mainfrom
frederick-vs-ja:patch-2
Open

[class.access.base] No cv-qualification for access to inherited members#5068
frederick-vs-ja wants to merge 1 commit into
cplusplus:mainfrom
frederick-vs-ja:patch-2

Conversation

@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja commented Oct 24, 2021

Fixes #4952
The pointed-to designating class type should be identically cv-qualified.
The class type of the left operand and the designating class of the member should be considered cv-unqualified for the purpose of accessibility.

Comment thread source/classes.tex Outdated
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Oct 24, 2021
Comment thread source/classes.tex Outdated
Comment thread source/classes.tex Outdated
@languagelawyer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jensmaurer @zygoloid @opensdh
Maybe just remove the paragraph? It seems to say the same thing as http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.prim.id.general#3.1 (which also needs a fix, at least s/can/shall)

@opensdh
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

opensdh commented Nov 15, 2021

@languagelawyer: Even aside from the "member's class" issue, that generic restriction doesn't address the possibility of rejecting the access for access control or ambiguous inheritance reasons. Perhaps there is already yet another place that checks that, though.

@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja force-pushed the patch-2 branch 2 times, most recently from 5f52813 to 0e1dc79 Compare July 23, 2023 05:35
@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja changed the title Cv-qualification for access to inherited members [class.access.base] No cv-qualification for access to inherited members Jul 23, 2023
@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@jensmaurer I'm trying to use the "less clunky approach" now (with squashing and rebasing).

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Jul 23, 2023
Comment thread source/classes.tex Outdated
@tkoeppe tkoeppe requested a review from jensmaurer November 9, 2023 23:30
@wg21bot wg21bot added the needs rebase The pull request needs a git rebase to resolve merge conflicts. label Jul 24, 2025
@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@jensmaurer I've rebased the branch and slightly reworded the wording.

... and discard cv for the left hand side operand.
@opensdh
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

opensdh commented Nov 4, 2025

This is of course the same restriction as is needed for the splicing of a base-class relationship (as recently discussed).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

needs rebase The pull request needs a git rebase to resolve merge conflicts.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[class.access.base] p6 Unclear about the cv-qualification

5 participants