On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Paul T. Bauman <ptbauman@...> wrote:
> I've attached a small patch that makes the init_*_shape_functions protected
> in fe.h (it also makes init_base_shape_functions protected in the derived
> class instead of protected in base and public in the derived - should I be
> surprised the compiler didn't warn about that?).
I believe this behavior is explicitly allowed by the standard, so
compliers don't warn about it.
A legitimate use would be if you wanted to make a public interface of
the parent be protected in the child... I can't really think of a
valid reason for the reverse, and in this case it was almost certainly
> It seems to me that the
> intent is for the user to use reinit anyway, so I don't think this should be
> a big deal, but I could be wrong. I want to test the waters with the simple
> change because bigger changes need to happen. The patch built and ran the
> examples fine for me on a fresh co at r5748.
Our stuff seems to compile and run OK with your patch...