Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 at 13:30, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should have reflection queries for such properties,
> > > instead of relying on access-bypassing reflection of privates.
> >
> > Seeing the entire class definition is not access. Access is access.
>
> I wonder whether you're talking about object access. Access controls in C++,
> however, cover more than that.
> You can't programmatically form well-formed dependencies to inaccessible
> parts of a class definition, including, for example, nested types that are private.

No? https://godbolt.org/z/833hc99E4