From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32499 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2003 13:56:01 -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 32468 invoked by uid 71); 25 Apr 2003 13:56:01 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030425135601.32467.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Pal Benko Subject: Re: c++/10496: erroneus suggestion in diagnostic and possible bug Reply-To: Pal Benko X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01093.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10496; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Pal Benko To: gdr@integrable-solutions.net Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/10496: erroneus suggestion in diagnostic and possible bug Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:49:26 +0200 > | (&a::f is accepted.) > > But isn't what you wrote in your testcase? Sometime is odd about it. Sorry, I muddled up something. I wrote &f, the compiler told me to write &const a::f, and I figured out that &a::f is accepted. I'm sort of interested in why &a::f is better than &f - I'm in a member function of a, aren't I? Pal Benko