On 02/06/14 00:46 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Some of the changes remove the explicit access-specifier (public) from
base classes, such as
: public false_type
=>
: false_type
In the affected examples this does not introduce a change of meaning
(because the classes are declared as structs), but my understanding
had been in the past that base class access specifiers should always
been provided in gcc code bases to make the code robust against
potential refactoring.
Is this simply an incorrect understanding of mine that is not based by
the gcc coding styles? I thought that Paolo taught me the
"explicit-access-style", but I might err.
I consider them to be redundant clutter, but I didn't realise we had
such a rule, so I'm happy to put the access-specifiers back.
