On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:56 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Rafael Espíndola < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I have a small concern that if a users writes an explicit >> attribute in a class member, he will find it surprising when it gets >> overwritten. >> > > I'm not sufficiently well versed in visibility rules to really chime in on > what the right model is, but there is a simple solution to this problem at > least: add a warning about explicit member visibility attributes that get > overridden? > > > But all of the attributes here have an effect. If you instantiated > Rafael's template at a type with non-hidden visibility, e.g. int, > the member's attribute still takes precedence. The attribute is > only "overridden" in the specific case of instantiating the > template at a hidden argument. I'm not convinced this is > actually a problem that bears a warning, vs. something that > we should defer to some hypothetical "explain everything that's > happening with this symbol" IDE query. > Yea, I was thinking more of the case without the template as deserving a warning.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
