Next round of new demangler patches

[Jason Merrill]

On 07 Dec 2003 04:33:02 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:

> Oh, I would really prefer std::string::~string() over
> std::string::~basic_string(), for the same reason I would prefer 
> std::string::string() over  std::string::basic_string() -- even more, 
> the standard explicitly says that T::T names a constructor

Only if T is the name of the class; string is not the name of the class, so
it doesn't qualify.  std::string::string() is ill-formed.

> (I would think, not I have not checked, that T::~T names the destructor).

It does, because the name after the ::~ is looked up in the same scope as the
name before the ::~.  If it's the same name on both sides, it will have the
same meaning, and therefore be accepted.

Jason