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: Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Cc: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
   nobody@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 05:04:39 +0100

 Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
 
 | 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?
 | 
 | No, it isn't. typedef is a decl-specifier. They are only allowed as a
 | sequence at the start of a simple-declaration:
 
 That is untrue.  Firstly, the syntax is valid.  Secondly "typedef" is
 a decl-specifier and as such can appear in anywhere in the
 decl-specifier-seq.  See 7.
 
 -- Gaby


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