From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-288089-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 842 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2011 15:46:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 830 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2011 15:46:25 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.216.47)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:46:21 +0000
Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5so226465qwh.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.141.71 with SMTP id l7mr4657939qcu.44.1301413580661; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.249.85 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikVhCy6-sDTbu+PP0-B7sWeOH3FARGXj8RM8w-d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=-PdaK2bni1d7ucHNNP2nSiDeJrnfET-ueaCvF@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikxo7955t51av28NhGt4VhA89TyFE6WNPjd_eNE@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTinP2BzdG+fnO7n=5p+hvaU_VZ+-HyDLNn2Wy2J=@mail.gmail.com>	<4D8A2403.5050708@redhat.com>	<AANLkTimDRZ94xrA4OPziT7+X-bPK3xfAptTELFpVn-eR@mail.gmail.com>	<4D90A209.2020508@redhat.com>	<AANLkTintp7fzurBNiiOC+cmRoLt2CF9Q4SwSe04Y1AQa@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTimWyPccxiYbYG97H9Y6ddHVHFjv+RpgM14tmNyV@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikoD0hoj36RqO163uXedvtxF1ntoageDv_Dzz3M@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=iqw486-bruSvw5PfwYsSSCKPEt=6dm75Y2sYF@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikVhCy6-sDTbu+PP0-B7sWeOH3FARGXj8RM8w-d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:53:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=jtjyRccr9-YNv6Fjd2ord9jicywGz7V8u_Ro=@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [C++0x] Range-based for statements and ADL
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivascosta@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg02002.txt.bz2

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Rodrigo Rivas
<rodrigorivascosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Should we consistently refer to %<for%> so the keyword is highlighted?
> Now that you say... I've not been quite consistent. We could say
> "range-based %<for%>", with only a dash between 'range' and 'based'.
>

or "new-style for loop"?