From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9694 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2003 15:46:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9644 invoked by uid 71); 23 Jan 2003 15:46:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030123154600.9643.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/7016 Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01371.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/7016; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth 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 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 ?= 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 -------------------------------------- > 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.