From 3902116575374047955 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fc772,e4551d1072848803 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e4551d1072848803 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-21 07:28:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!usc.edu!rpi!not-for-mail From: Christopher Eltschka Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++.moderated,comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Omitting the access specifier of a base class Date: 21 Dec 2001 10:28:48 -0500 Organization: Vienna University of Technology, Austria Lines: 34 Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Approved: francis.moderator@robinton.demon.co.uk Message-ID: <9vqr1q$58p$1@news.tuwien.ac.at> References: <3C051430.3AE0E9C2@bawi.org> <3C061364.9968E1B3@s2.chalmers.se> <9u7jlu$cnb$1@acs2.byu.edu> <7f2735a5.0112061412.50fc3d8f@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBFAgUAPCK7WOEDnX0m9pzZAQHcXwF/Rti9mENm2eWSNK0SrnqkeJG9oTZXdc1c RTyijXm9SR+BGFCix7Y4G8B8vp5tq+j5 =fpyi X-Approved-For-Group: Fergus Henderson comp.std.c++ X-Original-Date: 21 Dec 01 04:32:05 GMT X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated iQBVAwUAPCNVKkHMCo9UcraBAQE4BQIAqejJCwUlQ9DNsrgNin92Gaz5jWH7iGXl gmyrVEKqWI3uowc94WT7IPNt/4I7yDe9eckNLLTIVBHYgPEHZX7rmA== =Al1C Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c++.moderated:33281 comp.std.c++:8693 Francis Glassborow writes: [...] > The final sentence is: > Thus, in any elaborated-type specifier, the enum keyword shall be used > to refer to enumeration (7.2), the union class-key shall be used to > refer to a union (clause 9), and either the class or struct class-key > shall be used to refer to a class (clause 9) declared using the class or > struct class-key. > > Now note that it spells out union as one case but does not spell out > struct and class as separate cases. At the very least that is paragraph > is ambiguous, perhaps it is even contradictory. I think that a request > for interpretation would be one route or a defect report (but without > writing much more it is hard to see how to reword the text.) I think adding a second "either" between "declared using" and "the class or struct class-key" would clarify the situation: By repeating the "either", at least my (admittedly non-native) English understanding would rule out the possibility of separate association class-class and struct-struct. The sentence would then end in: "and either the class or struct class-key shall be used to refer to a class (clause 9) declared using either the class or struct class-key." [...] --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html ]