This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: parenthesess around constructor class name
- To: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at
- Subject: Re: parenthesess around constructor class name
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:05:06 -0800
- Cc: aldyh at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <Pine.BSF.email@example.com>
>>>>> "Gerald" == Gerald Pfeifer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Gerald> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> yet another silly ansi-ism. Jason has said it's ok.
>> 2001-02-08 Aldy Hernandez <email@example.com>
>> * cp/parse.y (component_constructor_declarator): allow optional
>> parenthesess around constructor class name.
Gerald> Should this go to the branch as well?
We should try to follow the guidelines in:
as clarified by the various follow-ups. Does this case meet any of
Note that this list does *not* contain "seems like a simple enough
change and does something good". It could -- but it doesn't. I'm not
by any means going to be draconian, so if maintainers want to approve
such patches for the brnach that's OK by me. But, we shouldn't do so
blithely. Mucking with the C++ parser, for example, can have subtle
side-effects; in this case, we should at least convince ourselves that
the vagaries of bison will not affect things.
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com