> You do not need exceptions to implement what I said, just to return a
> value. A boolean would suffice to detect whether you parsed a
> definition.
Sure, I was talking generally.
> The "before whatever" is hardcoded. And tentative parsing is
> thoroughly abused in the parser.
Well, I tried to parse it normally, but the function called from the
regular for loop expected after the declaration one of the following
';', ',', '(', '=', '{' if I remember right. When it found a ':' it
choked and emitted an error. Probably it would be better to let the
unknown char to be handled by the calling function. In this way if I
see a ':' I know that it is a range-based for and no tentative is
needed.But this is too big a change for me at the moment. For now, in order to solve Magnus's problem I suggest to just remove the check for new type in cp_parser_range_for(). Regards. Rodrigo
