This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ PATCH] [PR2204] Check for parameters of abstract types (partial fix)
"Zack Weinberg" <email@example.com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
| > | Gabriel Dos Reis <email@example.com> writes:
| > | > The repetition oan information that is already there. Any scheme that
| > | > requires repetition of information is wrong.
| > |
| > | Well, this is not consistent with what you have said before, and I
| > Again, I don't understand what you're talking about.
| You were quite adamant in the past that xxx_at() must go. So adamant,
| in fact, that I thought it was already dead.
| My position is:
| * locate_error is a nasty thing that should go away.
| * ", decl, decl" isn't pretty but it isn't as nasty as locate_error.
| * Consistency between the C and C++ front ends is desirable.
| and most importantly
| * Why are we holding up a bug fix with this stupid argument anyway?
What I find stupid is your current position. Quite frankly, it is
incomprehensible to me. You came in keeping saying that I used to be
yyy in the past so zzz must be. Even when I explained what I mean.
In fact, it is -you- holding up a patch with this stupid argument that
I used to be xxx.
I think that xxx_at() should be used until xxx() supports '%+', in
particular I recommend Giovanni makes the modification I suggested.