Skip to content

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

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor

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

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

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Oct 24, 2021
@languagelawyer
Copy link
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
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
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
@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
... and discard cv for the left hand side operand.
@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor Author

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

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