From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-101971-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21970 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2004 21:15:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21956 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2004 21:15:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vaxjo.synopsys.com) (198.182.60.75)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Sep 2004 21:15:17 -0000
Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171])
	by vaxjo.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 037B8DD5B; Fri,  3 Sep 2004 14:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27740;
	Fri, 3 Sep 2004 14:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)
	by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i83LFEO20731;
	Fri, 3 Sep 2004 14:15:14 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: piper.synopsys.com: jbuck set sender to Joe.Buck@synopsys.com using -f
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:15:00 -0000
From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
To: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
Cc: "Steven L. Zook" <SLZook@Qualstar.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Nested Class Member Access
Message-ID: <20040903141514.B343@synopsys.com>
References: <9E27B4AB55478346B9F7848926E49B7F4F7026@exchange1.qualstar.com> <0ca201c491e3$85d8acf0$f503030a@mimas>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <0ca201c491e3$85d8acf0$f503030a@mimas>; from rasky@develer.com on Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:26:26PM +0200
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:26:26PM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Steven L. Zook wrote:
> 
> > Is this behavior on GCC's part (that is, nested classes are members of the
> > enclosing class and thus have all access rights that other members have)
> > intentional?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > If so, should it be documented in the "Extensions to the C++ Language"
> > section of the GCC online documents.
> 
> Not really, because it is actually part of C++0x, so it is not a real
> extension in the traditional term. Instead, I would like to define a new
> language dialect (-std=c++0x) to activate such behavours (that is,
> implementation of DRs which are in WP status). There have been some talk
> about it, but no patches yet.

Speaking of c++0x, I'd dearly like to see an implementation of the "auto"
proposal that Stroustrup has championed, so loops iterating over
containers can be written simply and uniformly as

    for (auto iter = container.begin(); iter != container.end(); ++iter) {
	...;
    }