Re: Range-based for in c++98

[Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivascosta at gmail dot com>]

>> The easy solution would be to remove the assignment to
>> type_definition_forbidden_message and then check for this case
>> particulary.
>
> cp_parser_type_specifier_seq could return some indication of why the
> parsing has failed or whether it has parsed a declaration. This is
> much more useful than just throwing an error. In general this is true
> of the whole C++ parser.
You are right. Being a C++ parser it would be appropriate to implement
some kind of exception-like error management.
But this is way out of my scope (pun intended).

>> Or we can change the cp_parser_check_type_definition() function to call
>> cp_parser_error() instead of error().
>
> No please, cp_parser_error() is almost always annoying and
> uninformative saying things like:
>
> expected __asm__ before ';'
>
> because it lacks context.
I said that just because of c_parser_error respect the tentative flag.
I think that you can put whatever message you like, can't you?

>
>> Or we can just accept the type definition in the range-for and hope that
>> nobody will notice :P
>
> You will have to diagnose it with -pedantic anyway.
Are you sure? As I said in other post, I am no longer sure that the
C++0x draft forbids the type definition in this context.
But I'm no expert in standarese, so I'm still undecided.