On 2017.02.08 at 13:56 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:54:44PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.02.08 at 12:05 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On 07/02/17 15:04 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks much for the review. Looks ok now? > > > > > > > > I'd suggest adding something to say that the reason these are now > > > > being diagnosed is that G++ used to treat e.g. this->member, where > > > > member has a non-dependent type, as type-dependent, and now it > > > > doesn't. > > > > > > Like this? > > > > > > Index: porting_to.html > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-7/porting_to.html,v > > > retrieving revision 1.5 > > > diff -u -r1.5 porting_to.html > > > --- porting_to.html 7 Feb 2017 14:22:39 -0000 1.5 > > > +++ porting_to.html 8 Feb 2017 11:05:22 -0000 > > > @@ -52,7 +52,9 @@ > > > > > > <p> > > > As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no > > > longer > > > -compile them: > > > +compile them, because, in the following examples, G++ used to treat > > > > Please drop the redundant ", in the following examples". > > Why? I don't mean in generally, I only mean in in the context of those > examples.
I'm not suggesting to drop both. But: »As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no longer compile them, because, in the following examples, G++ used to...« The second occurrence of "the following examples" doesn't add any new meaning and is therefore redundant, because you are already referring to "the following examples". -- Markus
