Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mark, in PR c++/11987 you added a comment saying that it was a
> regression. But the more I look at it, the less I understand it.
>
> The test case is:
>
> ==================================================
> template <int dim> struct X {
> struct I { I(); };
> };
>
> template <int dim> struct Y : X<dim> {
> typedef typename X<dim>::I I;
> };
>
> template <int dim>
> Y<dim>::I::I () {} // note: I is nested type in X, not Y!
>
> template struct Y<1>;
> ==================================================
>
> g++ currently accepts this test case. The PR says that this test case
> is invalid, and should be rejected. But I can't figure out why.
I forget the chapter-and-verse, but the point is that I is nested in X,
and so to *define* its constructor (as opposed to refer to it), you have
to say X<dim>::I::I().
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
