On 10/02/2010 01:50 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
I would change cp_parser_range_for to use cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq
> instead of cp_parser_type_specifier_seq and then wait to complain about
> defining a type until after we've seen the ':'.
I already tried that, but it didn't work. It seemed to me that it was
because it called cp_parser_commit_to_tentative_parse(), and if then I
wanted to roll-back the parsing of the range-for, I went badly. I had
to agree with Manuel that the tentative parsing is a bit messy...
Ah, yes. So we should share the parsing of the decl-specifier-seq with
the C-style for loop, which allows us to avoid the tentative parsing.
Admittedly, this is not a "trailing_return_type", but AFAICT it has
exactly the same restrictions.
The restrictions are slightly different; in the case of a trailing
return type a class-specifier is not one of the expansions, so we don't
treat a { as beginning a class body. In the case of a
type-specifier-seq, we do treat it as beginning a class body, but we
give an error about it.
Jason
