From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12040 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2003 04:06:01 -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 12024 invoked by uid 71); 8 Feb 2003 04:06:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 04:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030208040601.12023.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Gabriel Dos Reis Subject: Re: c++/9621: const int typedef is rejected Reply-To: Gabriel Dos Reis X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00395.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/9621; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: Falk Hueffner Cc: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, patrick.rabau@gs.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/9621: const int typedef is rejected Date: 08 Feb 2003 05:04:39 +0100 Falk Hueffner writes: | bangerth@dealii.org writes: | | > Synopsis: const int typedef is rejected | > | > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback | > State-Changed-By: bangerth | > State-Changed-When: Sat Feb 8 00:22:54 2003 | > State-Changed-Why: | > Fixed in 3.4: it accepts both typedefs. | > | > I'm surprised that this is legal at all. The standard says | > that typedef expressions need to "contain" the typedef | > keyword, but the examples only show it as in the form | > typedef type1 type2; | > | > Can some language lawyer comment on whether and why | > type1 typedef type2; | > is legal syntax? | | No, it isn't. typedef is a decl-specifier. They are only allowed as a | sequence at the start of a simple-declaration: That is untrue. Firstly, the syntax is valid. Secondly "typedef" is a decl-specifier and as such can appear in anywhere in the decl-specifier-seq. See 7. -- Gaby