> On Jan 3, 2021, at 16:12, Volker Weißmann via cfe-users
> <cfe-users@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> If you define a type privately (or protected) like this:
>
> class c {
>
> class priv{};
>
> };
>
> then the writing "c::priv" outside of the class c will generate the error
> "'class c::priv' is private within this context". This is really bad for me,
> because I'm currently writing a tool that generates Rust-C++ wrappers. I'm
> thinking of writing a PR, that would add a command line option to clang that
> would make clang treat all type definitions as if there would be a "public:"
> in front of them. I'm asking if anyone wants to tell me that this is a bad
> idea or wants to give me advice.
Maybe I misunderstand your use case, but if you’re generating the C++ why not
just generate the inner type as accessible?
class c {
public:
class no_longer_priv{};
};
_______________________________________________
cfe-users mailing list
cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
