------=_Part_1697_701116478.1465067784081
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_1698_1305997757.1465067784081"

------=_Part_1698_1305997757.1465067784081
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hello everyone,

From cppreference, I see that polymorphic_memory_resources, recently added
to C++17:

http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/memory_resource

I keep wondering why the do_* functions, which are pure virtual, are
protected (instead of private).

AFAIK, private virtual functions can also be overriden and in this case
you do not need to call the base class implementation.

Should they be made private?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/78ef38f0-0642-4a9d-bed9-f0831731bd92%40isocpp.org.

------=_Part_1698_1305997757.1465067784081
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hello everyone,<div><br></div><div>From cppreference, I se=
e that polymorphic_memory_resources, recently added to C++17:</div><div><br=
></div><div>http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/memory_resource<br></di=
v><div><br></div><div>I keep wondering why the do_* functions, which are pu=
re virtual, are protected (instead of private).</div><div><br></div><div>AF=
AIK, private virtual functions can also be overriden and in this case</div>=
<div>you do not need to call the base class implementation.</div><div><br><=
/div><div>Should they be made private?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><=
/div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/78ef38f0-0642-4a9d-bed9-f0831731bd92%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/78ef38f0-0642-4a9d-bed9-f0831731bd92=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />

------=_Part_1698_1305997757.1465067784081--

------=_Part_1697_701116478.1465067784081--

.

On 4 June 2016 at 22:16, Germ=C3=A1n Diago <germandiago@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> From cppreference, I see that polymorphic_memory_resources, recently adde=
d
> to C++17:
>
> http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/memory_resource
>
> I keep wondering why the do_* functions, which are pure virtual, are
> protected (instead of private).
>
> AFAIK, private virtual functions can also be overriden and in this case
> you do not need to call the base class implementation.
>
> Should they be made private?


Yes, they should. They are not designed to be called by derived
classes. Thanks for pointing it out, I will file a Library Issue.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp=
..org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAFk2RUaoav5L3dDZ0__G%3D24qEGJA7aEfRVuf607xHD3V%=
3DFXdOA%40mail.gmail.com.

.

--001a11449c062d2a990534790f3b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 4 June 2016 at 14:16, Germ=C3=A1n Diago <germandiago@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> From cppreference, I see that polymorphic_memory_resources, recently adde=
d
> to C++17:
>
> http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/memory_resource
>
> I keep wondering why the do_* functions, which are pure virtual, are
> protected (instead of private).
>
> AFAIK, private virtual functions can also be overriden and in this case
> you do not need to call the base class implementation.
>
> Should they be made private?
>

Makes sense to me.  File an issue.
--=20
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com>  +1-847-691-1404

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp=
..org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAGg_6%2BMR_Qg52rYgMZCFQR5qo%2BckS6uPpkhvSvFUSCD=
DtYvTCA%40mail.gmail.com.

--001a11449c062d2a990534790f3b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On 4 June 2016 at 14:16, Germ=C3=A1n Diago <span dir=3D"lt=
r">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:germandiago@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">germandia=
go@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hello ever=
yone,<div><br></div><div>From cppreference, I see that polymorphic_memory_r=
esources, recently added to C++17:</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"http=
://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/memory_resource" target=3D"_blank">http=
://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/memory_resource</a><br></div><div><br><=
/div><div>I keep wondering why the do_* functions, which are pure virtual, =
are protected (instead of private).</div><div><br></div><div>AFAIK, private=
 virtual functions can also be overriden and in this case</div><div>you do =
not need to call the base class implementation.</div><div><br></div><div>Sh=
ould they be made private?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Make=
s sense to me.=C2=A0 File an issue.=C2=A0</div></div>-- <br><div class=3D"g=
mail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><div>=C2=A0Nevin &quot;:-)&quot; Liber=C2=A0 &lt;mailto:<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" target=3D"_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.=
com</a>&gt; =C2=A0+1-847-691-1404</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAGg_6%2BMR_Qg52rYgMZCFQR5qo%2BckS6uP=
pkhvSvFUSCDDtYvTCA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter"=
>https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAGg_6%2BMR_Q=
g52rYgMZCFQR5qo%2BckS6uPpkhvSvFUSCDDtYvTCA%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--001a11449c062d2a990534790f3b--

.

On 4 June 2016 at 22:43, Nevin Liber <nevin@eviloverlord.com> wrote:
> On 4 June 2016 at 14:16, Germ=C3=A1n Diago <germandiago@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> From cppreference, I see that polymorphic_memory_resources, recently add=
ed
>> to C++17:
>>
>> http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/memory_resource
>>
>> I keep wondering why the do_* functions, which are pure virtual, are
>> protected (instead of private).
>>
>> AFAIK, private virtual functions can also be overriden and in this case
>> you do not need to call the base class implementation.
>>
>> Should they be made private?
>
>
> Makes sense to me.  File an issue.


I did that already, the issue list maintainer will hopefully update in
a not-too-distant future.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp=
..org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAFk2RUZBF5hG1wLVCQfPmJaSgAv1AEfd0SZLn0-PEqOUb8E=
3SA%40mail.gmail.com.

.

------=_Part_4030_881261184.1465080292704
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_4031_1644317542.1465080292704"

------=_Part_4031_1644317542.1465080292704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


>
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > From cppreference, I see that polymorphic_memory_resources, recently
> added
> > to C++17:
> >
> > http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/memory_resource
> >
> > I keep wondering why the do_* functions, which are pure virtual, are
> > protected (instead of private).
> >
> > AFAIK, private virtual functions can also be overriden and in this case
> > you do not need to call the base class implementation.
> >
> > Should they be made private?
>
>
> Yes, they should. They are not designed to be called by derived
> classes. Thanks for pointing it out, I will file a Library Issue.
>

Great! Thanks.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/c8cb050d-92ac-4c32-bd9e-94300e27b59d%40isocpp.org.

------=_Part_4031_1644317542.1465080292704
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bor=
der-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><br>&gt; Hello everyone,
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; From cppreference, I see that polymorphic_memory_resources, recent=
ly added
<br>&gt; to C++17:
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; <a href=3D"http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/memory_resource=
" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http:/=
/www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%2Fen.cppreference.com%2Fw%2Fcpp%2Fmemor=
y%2Fmemory_resource\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNF9LAzYEF3qtQ3r1=
NTARRRACOA4Yw&#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.goo=
gle.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%2Fen.cppreference.com%2Fw%2Fcpp%2Fmemory%2Fmemo=
ry_resource\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNF9LAzYEF3qtQ3r1NTARRRAC=
OA4Yw&#39;;return true;">http://en.cppreference.com/w/<wbr>cpp/memory/memor=
y_resource</a>
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; I keep wondering why the do_* functions, which are pure virtual, a=
re
<br>&gt; protected (instead of private).
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; AFAIK, private virtual functions can also be overriden and in this=
 case
<br>&gt; you do not need to call the base class implementation.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; Should they be made private?
<br>
<br>
<br>Yes, they should. They are not designed to be called by derived
<br>classes. Thanks for pointing it out, I will file a Library Issue.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Great! Thanks.=C2=A0</div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/c8cb050d-92ac-4c32-bd9e-94300e27b59d%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/c8cb050d-92ac-4c32-bd9e-94300e27b59d=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />

------=_Part_4031_1644317542.1465080292704--

------=_Part_4030_881261184.1465080292704--

.

On 5 June 2016 at 01:44, Germ=C3=A1n Diago <germandiago@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, they should. They are not designed to be called by derived
>> classes. Thanks for pointing it out, I will file a Library Issue.
> Great! Thanks.


Here: http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2724

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp=
..org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAFk2RUapP1-uEg_ZB1VCRtha1ykJn%3DynLgSnceJPZJuNi=
hO%2BvA%40mail.gmail.com.

.