On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Paul T. Bauman <ptbau...@gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > I've attached a small patch that makes the init_*_shape_functions protected > in fe.h (it also makes init_base_shape_functions protected in the derived > class instead of protected in base and public in the derived - should I be > surprised the compiler didn't warn about that?).
I believe this behavior is explicitly allowed by the standard, so compliers don't warn about it. A legitimate use would be if you wanted to make a public interface of the parent be protected in the child... I can't really think of a valid reason for the reverse, and in this case it was almost certainly an oversight. > It seems to me that the > intent is for the user to use reinit anyway, so I don't think this should be > a big deal, but I could be wrong. I want to test the waters with the simple > change because bigger changes need to happen. The patch built and ran the > examples fine for me on a fresh co at r5748. Our stuff seems to compile and run OK with your patch... -- John ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
