From: marsh@extendedsubset.com   
      
   On 12/09/2011 11:28 AM, Peter C. Chapin wrote:   
      
   > On 2011-12-09 00:05, pjacobi wrote:   
      
   >   
      
   >> When f is a private member of class Foo, then class Bar   
      
   >> cannot declare Foo::f to be a function friend.   
      
   >>   
      
   >> Isn't this a bit strange? That function declaration would not give Bar   
      
   >> access to Foo internals, just the other way around, as any friend   
      
   >> declaration does.   
      
   >   
      
   > The very existence of Foo::f is part of Foo's internals. Class Bar isn't   
      
   > supposed to know that there is such a method as Foo::f. In particular,   
      
   > the author of class Foo is free to change or remove Foo::f at their   
      
   > whim. Such a change should not be a breaking change since Foo::f is   
      
   > private. Yet if class Bar could name Foo::f that code would fail to   
      
   > compile after Foo::f is removed.   
      
      
      
   Perhaps it would make sense for some future standard to downgrade   
   unmatched specifiers in friend declarations to a diagnostic message?   
      
      
      
   - Marsh   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)