This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++] Unreviewed patches
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 10 Jan 2004 00:18:27 +0100
- Subject: Re: [C++] Unreviewed patches
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <012b01c3d55a$83d170e0$34b82997@bagio><3FFE970B.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Nathan Sidwell <email@example.com> writes:
| In addition, as D is non-dependent, the typename keyword should not be there.
| But IIRC there is/may be a DR about relaxing the typename rule. Originally
| it was either needed or not-allowed, there was no overlap. If DR224 is
| implemented, without relaxing the typename rule, a lot of code will become
| ill-formed. See DR409.
There ought to be a paragraph somewhere in the TC, i.e. C++2003,
saying that "typename" can be used in such circumstance even if the
nested-qualifier is not dependent. The only requirement is that that
happens in template code.