dup field in sub-class should be reported by the compiler

[sa]

> I want to add to that. For a nested scope, there really isn't any
> barrier to renaming something. For a derived class, however, you have
> users of it, and you may need to specifically hide a base member.

How often does that happen?

And how often people run into subtle bugs that cause by such re-definition? (count
the replies in the this thread)