Hi,

Recently I met a problem described as the title, here is the background.

I am cleanning some codes with the warning of overloaded virtual functions.

Here is the introduction for overloaded virtual functions: 

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18515183/c-overloaded-virtual-function-warning-by-clang

Simply, for the codes:

```

struct Base

{
    virtual void * get(char* e);
//    virtual void * get(char* e, int index);
};

struct Derived: public Base {
    virtual void * get(char* e, int index);
};

```

Compilers would complains about:

```

warning: 'Derived::get' hides overloaded virtual function [-Woverloaded-virtual]

```

And the corresponding suggestion is:

```

struct Derived: public Base {
    using Base::get; // tell the compiler we want both the get from Base and ours
    virtual void * get(char* e, int index);
};

```

Then I use this method to refactor our codes and I run into problems with:

```

struct Base {

      virtual void * get(char* e);

private:

      virtual void * get(char* e, int index);

};

struct Derived: public Base {

    using Base::get; // Now the compiler complains that Base::get is private.
    virtual void * get();
};

```

At first, I thought it is a compiler bug. Since I think the compiler should search for the accessible part first.

However, I find these words in 9.9.14 N4878,

```

In a using-declarator that does not name a constructor, every declaration named shall be accessible.

```

So the behavior of compiler is consistent with the standard. Then I want to ask,

do you guys think it is a defect in the standard or there is any solution other than

more aggresive refactoring?

BTW, I send this to both std-discussion and std-proposal since I guess it is

related to both. Remind me if anyone isn't comfortable.

Thanks,

Chuanqi

--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals