[Bug c++/13967] A warning could be emitted if a template parameter of a member template is begin shadowed by another member of the class

["gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2004-02-07 13:11 -------
Subject: Re:  A warning could be emitted if a template parameter of a member template is begin shadowed by another member of the class

"gianni at mariani dot ws" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| Given this from William M. Miller - should we now reconsider reverting the
| summary to the original one ?
| 
| 
| Cut-n-paste from microsoft.public.vc.language ...
| ............................
| 
| That Bugzilla thread ends with an incorrect assertion about what the
| "correct" behavior is.  It reports that John Spicer agreed that the
| sample was ill-formed, but he later recanted that position -- he had
| been looking at the wrong example in the voluminous discussion on
| the reflector, and when he looked at the example in question, he said
| it was well-formed.
| 
| Although Gaby has now agreed, I think, that the EDG (Comeau) compiler
| has it right, I wouldn't consider the question resolved.  There's
| been no vote to establish consensus among the core working group, and
| at least three major compilers currently get a different answer from
| the EDG compiler.  Furthermore, I believe Gaby's acceptance of the
| EDG resolution is contingent on making the construct ill-formed, so
| it won't matter which way the resolution goes.  I'm sure this will
| be discussed at next month's Standard Committee meeting, and Microsoft
| is expected to be represented there.  I hope that we'll be able to
| come to consensus on the outcome then, but we'll have to wait and see.
| 
| -- William M. Miller
|    The MathWorks, Inc.

Sorry for not having updated the info here.  I've been meaning to do
that but I was kept occupied by other things.  
Yes, Mike's report is an accurate executive summary of the discussion
going on the C++ Core Group reflection (there are other ramifications
but I doubt they would much change the big picture as painted by Mike).
The least that can be said is that the standard description of name
lookup in member function definition is not complete and the syntax of
out-of-class definition of member template is deceiving in that it 
does not reflect the scope stack (in Mike's description, I've agreed
on, the scope stack would need to be resuffled at some point before we
start name lookup; and the added constraint Mike alluded to is to
rejected "invalid" template-parameters renaming).  There was no vote
to establish consensus, so suspending this PR is the right thing to do. 

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13967