Passing a pointer of inaccessible private base type to the derived class method

Question

This code example would describe the language feature I find non-intuitive.

class A {
public:
  A() {}
};

class B: private A
{
public:
  B() {}
};

class C: public B
{
public:
  C() {}
  void ProcessA(A* a) {
  }
};

int main() {
  C c;
}

Compilation of this code with Apple LLVM version 4.2 on Mac produces an

test.cc:16: error: ‘class A’ is inaccessible
test.cc:16: error: within this context

Replacing void ProcessA(A* a) with void ProcessA(::A* a) would make it build but I don't understand why should I use absolute class name here. Is it a language feature that is there to avoid certain kind of errors or is it just a dark C++ grammar corner like requirement to put space between angle brackets (> >) in templates parametrized with other templates. Thanks!

Answer 1

Human talk

I 'll start by describing what happens here -- forgive me if you already know this, but it creates necessary context for the follow-up.

The compiler resolves the unqualified A to ::C::A (the result will be the same if you make the change at source level yourself). Since ::C::A is inaccessible an error message is emitted.

You are proposing that the compiler should detect that ::C::A is inaccessible and the reference to A should then be considered a reference to ::A as a fallback. However, ::C::A and ::A may easily be two entirely different things.

Automatically guessing what should be done here is not only prone to introducing bugs and/or hair-pulling¹, but also completely contrary to the spirit of C++.

Standardese

Confirmation that this behavior is conformant and by-design, directly from the C++11 standard.

§9/2 says:

A class-name is inserted into the scope in which it is declared immediately after the class-name is seen. The class-name is also inserted into the scope of the class itself; this is known as the injected-class-name.

This means that inside the scope of class C, A is an injected-class-name.

§3.4/3 states that the injected-class-name is a candidate for name lookups:

The injected-class-name of a class is also considered to be a member of that class for the purposes of name hiding and lookup.

§3.4/1 clarifies that the inaccessibility of the base A does not prevent the injected-class-name A from being considered:

The access rules are considered only once name lookup and function overload resolution (if applicable) have succeeded.

§11.1/5 gives a direct explanation of the exact situation under discussion:

[Note: In a derived class, the lookup of a base class name will find the injected-class-name instead of the name of the base class in the scope in which it was declared. The injected-class-name might be less accessible than the name of the base class in the scope in which it was declared. —end note ]

The standard also gives this example, which is equivalent to yours:

class A { };
class B : private A { };
class C : public B {
    A *p;   // error: injected-class-name A is inaccessible
    ::A *q; // OK
};

---

¹ Imagine what happens if A is initially a public base, then later becomes private during a refactoring. Also imagine that ::A and ::C::A are unrelated. You would expect that a call like a->foo() (which used to work) would fail because foo is no longer accessible, but instead of this the type of a has changed behind your back and you now get a "there is no method foo" error. Huh?!? And that's of course far from the worst that could happen.