From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-12 11:47:29
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:36:32PM +0200, Markus Sch?pflin wrote:
> In my efforts to make boost.test compile with tru64cxx65 I came about
> the following issue.
>
> Currently, class fixed_mapping contains a private member called
> elem_type which is later on used in the inline definition of an
> operator() contained in two inline structs.
>
> class fixed_mapping
> {
> typedef ... elem_type;
>
> struct p1 : public ...
> {
> bool operator()(elem_type const &x, ...) { ... }
> }
> };
>
> My compiler complains that elem_type is inaccessible in the definition
> of operator() and I think it is right to complain.
There's a defect report about this. The proposed resolution says that
nested classes should have the same access rights as member functions,
but it hasn't been approved yet IIRC.
I think g++ implements the proposed resolution already.
jon
-- Some things have to be believed to be seen. - Ralph Hodgson