Access specifier while overriding methods?

Yes you can, but it "doesn't grok Take a look at stackoverflow.com/questions/484592/overr....

Yes you can, but it "doesn't grok". Take a look at stackoverflow.com/questions/484592/overr....

But, as the cited parashift. Com FAQ says, that doesn't apply to private/protected inheritance. – Potatoswatter Apr 21 '10 at 5:11.

The answer is: sort of. You can only change the access of members the derived class has access to. The type of inheritance has no effect - this only controls the default access for inherited members (to a point, following other rules).

So, you can make a base class's protected members public or private; or a base's public members protected or private. You cannot, however, make a base's private members public or protected. Example: class Foo { protected: void protected_member(); private: void private_member(); public: void public_member(); }; class Bar : private Foo { public: using Foo::protected_member; using Foo::private_member; using Foo::public_member; }; int main(int, const char**) { Bar bar; return 0; } The above code elicits the following error on g++ 4.1.2: main.

C:7: error: 'void Foo::private_member()' is private main. C:14: error: within this context Additionally, overriding has nothing to do with changing the access of a method. You can override a virtual private method, you just cannot call it from a derived class.

You definitely can. But it makes no sense. If it is a public inheritance, then you can always cast an object to its base.

If it's a private inheritance, all base methods are already private by default. In case of protected inheritance you can make the base method private, so you prevent possible derived classes from calling it, but I don't really understand why one might need it.

Yes you can, and in fact you don't even need to override or use virtual anything. Class ABC { public: // or this may be protected, no difference void woof(); void moo(); }; class D : private ABC { // now woof and moo are private public: using ABC::woof; // using declaration to make woof public again ABC::moo; // access declaration (deprecated) does the same }; The same works if they are virtual, too. Or, as others noted, virtual function lookup ignores the access specified by the implementing class; any class you can cast to may provide access at compile time.

On the other hand, without the special declarations in D, the public interface of ABC would indeed be inaccessible through D because you wouldn't be able to upcast to ABC. And if woof and moo were virtual, you would want to make the overrides private to hide them. Perhaps that better answers the question.

1 I'm pretty sure it makes a big difference if they were private in class ABC. Class D has to have access to the base members before it can name them successfully in a using declaration. OTOH, they could have been protected in ABC and the using would still work.

– Ben Voigt Apr 20 '10 at 3:09 @Ben: sorry, I meant protected. Fixed. – Potatoswatter Apr 20 '10 at 3:36.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.