<HTML>
<HEAD>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>
    CWG Issue 500</TITLE>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
  INS { text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold; background-color:#A0FFA0 }
  .INS { text-decoration:none; background-color:#D0FFD0 }
  DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color:#FFA0A0 }
  .DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color: #FFD0D0 }
  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    HTML { background-color:#202020; color:#f0f0f0; }
    A { color:#5bc0ff; }
    A:visited { color:#c6a8ff; }
    A:hover, a:focus { color:#afd7ff; }
    INS { background-color:#033a16; color:#aff5b4; }
    .INS { background-color: #033a16; }
    DEL { background-color:#67060c; color:#ffdcd7; }
    .DEL { background-color:#67060c; }
  }
  SPAN.cmnt { font-family:Times; font-style:italic }
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><EM>This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21
  Core Issues List revision 118b.
  See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official
  list.</EM></P>
<P>2025-09-28</P>
<HR>
<A NAME="500"></A><H4>500.
  
Access in <I>base-specifier</I>s of friend and nested classes
</H4>
<B>Section: </B>11.8.4&#160; [<A href="https://wg21.link/class.friend">class.friend</A>]
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Status: </B>CD1
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Submitter: </B>Andreas Hommel
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Date: </B>25 Jan 2005<BR>


<P>[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]</P>



<P>I don't know the reason for this distinction, but it seems to be
surprising that <TT>Base::A</TT> is legal and <TT>D</TT> is illegal in
this example:
</P>

<PRE>
    class D;
    class Base
    {
        class A;
        class B;
        friend class D;
    };
    class Base::B
    {
    };
    class Base::A : public Base::B  // OK because of issue 45
    {
    };
    class D : public Base::B        // illegal because of 11.4p4
    {
    };
</PRE>

<P>Shouldn't this be consistent (either way)?</P>

<P><B>Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:</B></P>

<P>In discussing <A HREF="372.html">issue 372</A>, the CWG decided
that access in the <I>base-specifier</I>s of a class should be the
same as for its members, and that resolution will apply
to <TT>friend</TT> declarations, as well.</P>

<P><B>Proposed resolution (October, 2005):</B></P>

<P>This issue is resolved by the resolution of <A HREF="372.html">issue 372</A>.</P>

<BR><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
