Why is there an access error when trying to access a protected member of a base template class?-CodePudding

It works fine with regular classes:

class Base
{
public:
    Base() {}
protected:
    int* a;
};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
    Derived() {}
    void foo() {
        int** pa = &a;
    }
};

int main() {
    Derived* d = new Derived();
    d->foo();
    delete  d;
}

But it reports an error when Base and Derived classes use templates:

‘int* Base<int>::a’ is protected within this context

template<typename T>
class Base
{
public:
    Base() {}
protected:
    int* a;
};

template<typename T>
class Derived : public Base<T>
{
public:
    Derived() {}
    void foo() {
        int** pa = &Base<T>::a;
    }
};

int main() {
    Derived<int>* d = new Derived<int>();
    d->foo();
    delete d;
}

Why is that?

CodePudding user response：

The error is mostly unrelated to templates, and occurs also without any inheritance. The simple issue is that the expression &Base<T>::a is parsed as a pointer to member, as the following snippet shows:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

class B
{
public:
    void foo()
    {
        int* B::* pa = &B::a;
        int** pi = &(B::a);

        cout << typeid(pa).name() << endl;
        cout << typeid(pi).name() << endl;
    }

protected:
    int* a;
};

struct D : public B
{
    // Access to B::a is perfectly fine.
    int* B::* pa = &B::a;

    // But this causes a type error:
    // "cannot convert from 'int *B::* ' to 'int **'
    // int** pi = &B::a;
    
    // Parentheses help to get the address of this->a ...
    int** pi2 = &(B::a);

    // ... and writing this->a helps, too ;-).
    int **pi3 = &this->a;

    // Of course, outside of templates we can simply write a!
    int** pi4 = &a;
};

int main()
{
    B b;
    b.foo();
}

The output is:

int * B::*
int * *

Templates are where the error surfaces because we are forced to qualify dependent names and therefore unintentionally end up with a pointer-to-member construct.

Both solutions in the comment section work: You can simply write &this->a or, as I did here, put the qualified member in parentheses. Why the latter works is not clear to me: operator::() has the single highest precedence, so the parentheses do not change that.

It is, as one would expect, perfectly possible to take the address of a protected base class member in a derived class. The error message when templates are involved was, as far as I can see, incorrect and misleading (but then I'm usually wrong when I think it's the compiler's fault...).