Why is this an issue?
Redundant access specifiers should be removed because they needlessly clutter the code.
Noncompliant code example
struct S {
public: // Noncompliant; does not affect any declaration
private:
void method();
private: // Noncompliant; does not change accessibility level
int member;
private: // Noncompliant; does not affect any declaration
};
class C {
int member;
private: // Noncompliant; does not change accessibility level
void method();
};
Compliant solution
struct S {
private:
void method();
int member;
};
class C {
int member;
void method();
};
Exceptions
An access specifier at the very beginning of a class or struct that matches the default access level is ignored even when
it doesn’t change any accessibility levels.
class C {
private: // redundant but accepted
// ...
};
struct S {
public: // redundant but accepted
// ...
};
Such a specifier is redundant, but ignored to allow classes and structs to be described uniformly.
class C {
public:
void call();
protected:
int delete();
private:
int code;
};
struct S {
public: // redundant but accepted
int sum();
protected:
int min();
private:
int count;
};
