Those are somewhat above my pain threshold. Is there something else that we could do for the 4.0 branch? Like issue a warning and ignore the friend declaration?
Sorry for long delay. I just got back from a trip (but I will be away next week as well.) Doing what you suggest, ignoring friend declarations, would break other valid code now accepted by 4.0 such as below:
class A {};
namespace N {
class B {
friend class A;
// more stuff here
};
class A {
// accessing B private/protected members
};
}> Am I correct in understand that the problem > case is that the friend declaration looks like "friend class C" where > there is a C in a containing scope, but no C in the class with the > friend declaration? The problem here is name conflict of C in two different scope via using declaration/directive.
I see that either the patch (actually only one of the two fixes this issue: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01283.html ) applied or leave the current behavior as is. It would do more harm than good if we try to do something different.
--Kriang
