From 4005685631046555052 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ac06fef48c3c04df X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ac06fef48c3c04df X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-22 11:07:15 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++ Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!news From: maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) Subject: Re: friends and local classes Message-ID: Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU Nntp-Posting-Host: physics.su.oz.au Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia References: <3frgln$deh@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <3froli$gss@news.panix.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 19:07:15 GMT Lines: 26 Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.lang.c++:87458 comp.std.c++:11215 In article <3froli$gss@news.panix.com> Viktor Yurkovsky writes: >inside that function should have access. However, there are some >interesting problems stemming from that such as: if this function >now calls a function in another class, does it pass the friendship >factor on? No. > >Is friend dynamically or statically bound, really? Friendship is statically enforced. However, there is a difference between static protection (including friendship) and _dynamic_ accessibility. A friend or member, for example, can grant access to the private details of an object to the public, or a specific function, by simply passing a pointer to the private member. There is only one way to stop this that I know of: ensure the private member is of a _private type_. -- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au Maxtal Pty Ltd, 81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21 NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA Phone: 61-2-566-2189