Re: c++/7016

[Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>]

The following reply was made to PR c++/7016; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/7016
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:41:08 -0600 (CST)

 [Originally blocked by spam filter, just as following messages]
 
 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 06:51:42 +0000
 From: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk>
 To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
      jbeulich@novell.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
 Subject: Re: c++/7016: missing definitions for <?= and >?=
 
 bangerth@dealii.org wrote:-
 
 >     This is probably a corner case whether I should close the
 >     report: this has never worked (used to ICE)
 >     ---------------------------------
 >     class C {};
 >     C operator <?= (C) { return C(); }
 >     --------------------------------------
 >     I don't think it was ever documented that one should be
 >     able to overload this operator (a gcc extension anyway).
 >     Now we at least get a reasonable error:
 >     g/a> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.4-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
 >     x.cc:2: error: expected identifier
 >     x.cc:2: error: expected type-name
 >     x.cc:2: error: expected `,' or `;'
 >     
 >     So the fact that the new parser rejects the code is ok, and
 >     is not removing a documented extension.
 
 The documentation should say one way or the other.  FWIW to me
 allowing overloading is TRT.
 
 Neil.