I'd like to know if anyone can definitively state that the following
are legal or illegal. All responses are appreciated.

    1) Does a static member initializer have the same accessibility
       as a member function? Scope yes, accessibility? (Probably the
       answer should be yes, but I couldn't find an explicit mention.)

    struct base {
      protected:
         static int x;
    };

    int base::x = 0;

    struct derived : public base {
         static int y;
           };

    int derived::y = base::x;  // Same saccessibility as member func?

       This is probably legal but I couldn't find a sentence in the
       draft that permits it.

    2) Definition of accessibility: Is a protected base class accessible?
       It's public members are accessible, but only for an object's
       own subobject.

     struct base { };
     struct d1 : protected base { };
     struct d2 : protected base { base * f(d1 *); };

     base * d2::f(d1 * p) { return p; } // Legal

That's all for the moment. All comments are appreciated. Thanks.

Daniel Edelson
daniel@cse.ucsc.edu

Daniel R. Edelson (daniel@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: I'd like to know if anyone can definitively state that the following
: are legal or illegal. All responses are appreciated.
:
:     1) Does a static member initializer have the same accessibility
:        as a member function? Scope yes, accessibility? (Probably the
:        answer should be yes, but I couldn't find an explicit mention.)

 Yes. See pp.180 of ARM:

 "Static members obey the usual class member access rules except that
 they can be initialized (in file scope)."

 This definition is quite clear; however, I found that g++ cannot allow
a private static data member be initialized in file scope. Look at the example
on pp.180, it initializes some private static data members.

:     2) Definition of accessibility: Is a protected base class accessible?
:        It's public members are accessible, but only for an object's
:        own subobject.
:
:      struct base { };
:      struct d1 : protected base { };

 Protected base class is not defined in ARM. I think it should be
illegal, although the grammar in ARM appendix allows such syntax.

Regards,

----------
Pei-Chi Wu
Institute of C.S.I.E.
Nat'l Chiao-Tung Univ.
Hsinchu, Taiwan 30050
e-mail: pcwu@csie.nctu.edu.tw
-----------------------------