From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6509 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2003 06:56:00 -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 6495 invoked by uid 71); 26 Apr 2003 06:56:00 -0000 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 06:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030426065600.6494.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Gabriel Dos Reis Subject: Re: c++/10496: erroneus suggestion in diagnostic and possible bug Reply-To: Gabriel Dos Reis X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01197.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10496; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: Pal Benko Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/10496: erroneus suggestion in diagnostic and possible bug Date: 26 Apr 2003 08:47:20 +0200 Pal Benko writes: | >From benko Fri Apr 25 15: 49 MES 2003 | References: <20030425130751.2623.qmail@sources.redhat.com> | | | > | (&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, Yes, that is an error from the compiler side. I'll reword the synopsys. | I'm sort of interested in why &a::f is better than &f - I'm in a | member function of a, aren't I? You're in the scope of a, but that is irrelevant because the C++ definition says that the only way to form a pointer to member is to say &class-name :: member. -- Gaby