This is the mail archive of the gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: c++/9621: const int typedef is rejected


The following reply was made to PR c++/9621; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: bangerth@dealii.org
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, patrick.rabau@gs.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/9621: const int typedef is rejected
Date: 08 Feb 2003 05:03:09 +0100

 bangerth@dealii.org writes:
 
 | Synopsis: const int typedef is rejected
 | 
 | State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
 | State-Changed-By: bangerth
 | State-Changed-When: Sat Feb  8 00:22:54 2003
 | State-Changed-Why:
 |     Fixed in 3.4: it accepts both typedefs.
 |     
 |     I'm surprised that this is legal at all. The standard says
 |     that typedef expressions need to "contain" the typedef
 |     keyword, but the examples only show it as in the form
 |       typedef type1 type2;
 |     
 |     Can some language lawyer comment on whether and why
 |       type1 typedef type2;
 |     is legal syntax?
 
 It is.  See a recent discussion on comp.std.c++ where I gave detailed
 references.  Basically it boils down to the clause 7; section 7.1.
 decl-specifiers can appear in *any* order -- that is one of the reasons
 why grokdeclarator() is so weird.
 
 -- Gaby


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]