Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[range.split.view,range.chunk.by.view] public exposition-only member functions? #5891

Open
CaseyCarter opened this issue Oct 5, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

[range.split.view,range.chunk.by.view] public exposition-only member functions? #5891

CaseyCarter opened this issue Oct 5, 2022 · 1 comment

Comments

@CaseyCarter
Copy link
Contributor

There's no reason to make an exposition-only member public; it doesn't really make sense to provide users with access to an unspecified name. LWG has avoided public exposition-only members in the past, but some have managed to sneak into the subject subclauses (split_view's member find-next, and chunk_view's find-next and find-prev). It's not clear to me if this was a deliberate choice by LWG, or simply an oversight that should be corrected in the working draft.
@CaseyCarter CaseyCarter changed the title [range.split.view,range.chunk.by.view] Declare public exposition-only member functions [range.split.view,range.chunk.by.view] public exposition-only member functions? Oct 5, 2022
@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor

Perhaps related to LWG2310, LWG2743, and LWG3107.

Should we also specify in [objects.within.classes] that "Whenever an exposition only member is referred in another class defined in the standard library, the member is considered accessible." alongwith making all of them private?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@CaseyCarter @frederick-vs-ja