private inheritance

[Aleksandr Rulev]

#include <iostream>

class Foo{
public:
Foo(){std::cout <<"Foo ";};
};

class Bar:Foo{
public:
Bar(){std::cout <<"Bar ";};

};

class FooToo: virtual Foo{
public:
FooToo(){std::c out<<"FooToo ";};

};

class FooTooBar: virtual FooToo,virtual Bar{
public:
FooTooBar(){std ::cout<<"FooToo Bar ";};

};

main (){
FooTooBar x;
}

should x be instantiated o should it give compiler error?

[WW]

Aleksandr Rulev wrote:

#include <iostream>

class Foo{
public:
Foo(){std::cout <<"Foo ";};
};

class Bar:Foo{
public:
Bar(){std::cout <<"Bar ";};

};

class FooToo: virtual Foo{
public:
FooToo(){std::c out<<"FooToo ";};

};

class FooTooBar: virtual FooToo,virtual Bar{
public:
FooTooBar(){std ::cout<<"FooToo Bar ";};

};

main (){
FooTooBar x;
}

should x be instantiated o should it give compiler error?

Why do you think it should be an error?

--
WW aka Attila

[WW]

Aleksandr Rulev wrote:

main (){

int main() {

--
WW aka Attila

[Aleksandr Rulev]

MS C++ compiles it; Borland doesn't. What is proper behavior? (I don't trust
MS implementation)
"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bl******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

Aleksandr Rulev wrote:

#include <iostream>

class Foo{
public:
Foo(){std::cout <<"Foo ";};
};

class Bar:Foo{
public:
Bar(){std::cout <<"Bar ";};

};

class FooToo: virtual Foo{
public:
FooToo(){std::c out<<"FooToo ";};

};

class FooTooBar: virtual FooToo,virtual Bar{
public:
FooTooBar(){std ::cout<<"FooToo Bar ";};

};

main (){
FooTooBar x;
}

should x be instantiated o should it give compiler error?

Why do you think it should be an error?

--
WW aka Attila

[Aleksandr Rulev]

main() = int main(). you should know.
"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bl******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

Aleksandr Rulev wrote:

main (){

int main() {

--
WW aka Attila

[WW]

Aleksandr Rulev wrote:

MS C++ compiles it; Borland doesn't. What is proper behavior? (I
don't trust MS implementation)

Do not top post. What error do you get?

--
WW aka Attila

[WW]

Aleksandr Rulev wrote:

main() = int main(). you should know.

Nope. You should *not* know. Neither in C++ nor in current C (C99)
implicit int is legal. It has never been part of standard C++.

--
WW aka Attila

[Aleksandr Rulev]

Foo()::Foo() is not accessible. // Borland
OK with MS
"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bl******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

Aleksandr Rulev wrote:

MS C++ compiles it; Borland doesn't. What is proper behavior? (I
don't trust MS implementation)

Do not top post. What error do you get?

--
WW aka Attila

[Aleksandr Rulev]

"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bl******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

Aleksandr Rulev wrote:

main() = int main(). you should know.

Nope. You should *not* know. Neither in C++ nor in current C (C99)
implicit int is legal. It has never been part of standard C++.

--
WW aka Attila

it says that a compiler is not required to
implement
the implicit int rule. That means you cannot rely on this feature in
portable
code.

[WW]

Aleksandr Rulev wrote:

Foo()::Foo() is not accessible. // Borland
OK with MS

Do not top post:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.4

--
WW aka Attila