From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20696 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2002 14:56:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20673 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 14:56:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO merlin.nerim.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 14:56:12 -0000 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by merlin.nerim.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) id g6AEsmk24142; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:54:48 +0200 To: Richard Smith Cc: Subject: Re: Block scope using declarations of operators References: From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Richard Smith's message of "Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:32:20 +0100 (BST)" Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00453.txt.bz2 Richard Smith writes: | On 10 Jul 2002, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | > Richard Smith writes: | > | > | Gcc's C++ grammar does not accept block scope using declarations of | > | operators, e.g. | > | > This is a long standing misbehaviour in GCC (already present the 2.95 | > series). | | Yes, I'd noticed that too, although I couldn't find a PR for it. | | Are there any particular reasons why it hadn't been fixed yet? Or is it | just lack of time/enthusiasm. Unless I'm missing something the fix ought | to be quite straight-forward. I got caught by that misbehaviour in the past, but didn't put it on the top on my TODO list. I think it was fixed by lack of time, not lack of enthusiasm. | > Although serious, I'm not sure it qualifies as a regression. | | Yes, I agree. Development for 3.2 is only in stage 2, so might it be | appropriate to apply it there? Yes, I think 3.2 should be the right place. After 3.1.1 release, we might raise the issue again for 3.1.x, but it is Mark's call. -- Gaby