From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18757 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2011 22:09:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 18748 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2011 22:09:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:09:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6KM9IcP028093 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:09:18 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6KM9H1C028128; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:09:17 -0400 Received: from [0.0.0.0] ([10.3.113.11]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6KM9GAG005070; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:09:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4E27520C.2050305@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:31:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110719 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd@verizon.net> CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [C++-0x] User defined literals. References: <4DB59410.4010800@verizon.net> <4E1C8713.5010206@redhat.com> <4E1CB4EB.3070703@redhat.com> <4E274985.7000008@verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <4E274985.7000008@verizon.net> 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: 2011-07/txt/msg01700.txt.bz2 On 07/20/2011 05:32 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: > Now I have a real question: Since a shadowed suffix *cannot* act like > the user wants no matter what, should I error instead of warn? It doesn't seem any more erroneous than any other suffix without a leading underscore, even though it isn't very useful. But it can still be called directly by operator name. But on a related topic, I think complaining about suffixes without a leading underscore should not depend on OPT_pedantic; it should only be silenced if in_system_header. Jason