[PATCH] Implement DR85: Redeclaration of member class

[Jordan Rose]

The text says "already-defined", but in the first case it's merely declared twice.

If there's really no better justification than "because the standard says so", why not make this Ext or ExtWarn instead of Error? Clearly we already have this working.

Jordan


On Jun 9, 2013, at 23:51 , David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote:

> The attached patch implements DR85 [*] which disallows the existence of a declaration of a member class that isn't a forward declaration before it's definition.
> 
> This means that the following would be disallowed:
> class A {
>   struct B; // note here
>   struct B; // error here
> };
> 
> as well as:
> class C {
>   struct B {}; // note here
>   struct B; // error here
> };
> 
> I'm very open to suggestions on the diagnostic, I couldn't think of a great one that doesn't boil down to "this is forbidden because the standard says so."
> 
> [*] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#85
> 
> Thanks
> -- 
> David Majnemer
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130610/e1f08e01/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dr85.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 5510 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130610/e1f08e01/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130610/e1f08e01/attachment-0001.html>