On 31 March 2011 21:22, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/28/2011 08:28 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
>>>
>>> A few comments:
>>> 1. I'm not sure about what should happen if the begin/end found in class
>>> scope are not ordinary functions.
>>
>> Whatever range.begin() would mean if written explicitly.
>>
>>> My guess is that if it is a function
>>> (static or non-static) it is called normally, and if it is a member
>>> variable it is searched for an operator()(). If it is a type it should
>>> fail.
>>
>> Yes, because we can't use . syntax to name type members.
>
> Yeah, actually what I meant is whether:
>
> struct S { typedef int begin, end; };
> //...
> for (auto x : S()) ;
>
> should fall back to ADL or else fail at once. My guess is that is
> should fail, but curiously enough my patch does ADL...Yes, it should fail because the rules for class member access say that if E2 is a nested type then the expression E1.E2 is ill-formed (which is just the formal wording for what Jason said :-)
