This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/7016: missing definitions for <?= and >?=
- From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- To: bangerth at dealii dot org, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,jbeulich at novell dot com, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 06:51:42 +0000
- Subject: Re: c++/7016: missing definitions for <?= and >?=
- References: <20030123031118.4355.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
bangerth@dealii.org wrote:-
> This is probably a corner case whether I should close the
> report: this has never worked (used to ICE)
> ---------------------------------
> class C {};
> C operator <?= (C) { return C(); }
> --------------------------------------
> I don't think it was ever documented that one should be
> able to overload this operator (a gcc extension anyway).
> Now we at least get a reasonable error:
> g/a> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.4-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
> x.cc:2: error: expected identifier
> x.cc:2: error: expected type-name
> x.cc:2: error: expected `,' or `;'
>
> So the fact that the new parser rejects the code is ok, and
> is not removing a documented extension.
The documentation should say one way or the other. FWIW to me
allowing overloading is TRT.
Neil.