From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13464 invoked by alias); 13 May 2011 18:14:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 13455 invoked by uid 22791); 13 May 2011 18:14:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 May 2011 18:13:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4DIDrZp021088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 13 May 2011 14:13:53 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn-113-120.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.120]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4DIDqo5020143; Fri, 13 May 2011 14:13:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCD74E0.9090303@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:48:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ville Voutilainen CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] C++0x, implement final on classes References: <87liyav7hf.wl%ville@ville-laptop> <4DCD6E7C.4070302@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg01011.txt.bz2 On 05/13/2011 01:53 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 13 May 2011 20:46, Jason Merrill wrote: >> Why did you put this before the invalid template-id check, rather than >> after? > > For no particular reason. Is it significant? Yes, the order affects the handling of struct Undeclared final { }; >> Also, shouldn't we reject "override" on classes? > > You can have stuff like > struct blah override{}; > > where struct blah is an elaborate-type-specifier, and override is a > variable name. > How do I tell the difference, or more precisely, how do I know when a > class is being defined for the first time? Add the error after the call to cp_parser_commit_to_tentative_parse, at which point we've decided that we're dealing with a class definition. Jason