This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++] PATCH c++/17542
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu>
- To: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- Cc: "Matt Austern" <austern at apple dot com>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 29 Oct 2004 10:41:19 -0500
- Subject: Re: [C++] PATCH c++/17542
- Organization: Texas A&M University, Department of Computer Science
- References: <9A5B94DA-29BD-11D9-84FF-000A95BCF344@apple.com><0c8901c4bdcd$7499fa50$46b92997@bagio>
"Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it> writes:
| Matt Austern wrote:
|
| > + if (declspecs->attributes)
| > + {
| > + cp_warning_at ("attribute ignored in declaration of %q#T", t);
| > + cp_warning_at ("attribute for %q#T must follow the class key",
| > t);
| > + }
|
| I would think that 'class key' is a legal term which is not common in C++
| development. Probably saying "enum/class/struct keyword" is a little easier to
| follow.
I disagree. If we really want to be anal precise about it, we should
be displaying the real class-key written by user.
| Also, I reckon the second line should be an inform() but do we have
| cp_inform_at?
No, we don't. I'm not sure we want to increate the number of xxx_at
functions. I was under the impression that Zack wanted to come up
with something different. Is my memory failing?
-- Gaby