2014-06-02 0:50 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>: > 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.
My formulation was intentionally tentative, because I never searched for that coding rule. Maybe Paolo could help to clarify. - Daniel
