Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Dodji Seketeli wrote:
That, and [dcl.typedef]/6 says:
In a given scope, a typedef specifier shall not be used to redefine
the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to a different
type.
So, I tend to think that GCC is right here.
Right *where*? In case of the snippet provided by Ulf -- yes, obviously.
In my case there is no "that scope", i.e. I redefine the type "super" defined
in the *surrounding* scope, not in the very same, as Ulf did. It is exactly
the same situation as:
{ int i;
float i;
}
and:
{int i;
{ float i;}
}
GCC is right in both cases and, similarly, [dcl.typedef]/6 doesn't affect any
of them at all, because, as you noted, there aren't any redeclarations in the
same scope in any of the two snippets.
However, you should not forget about [basic.scope.class]/1. I will not post the
wording again, but it means a name used in a class must mean the same thing in
all uses and at the end of the class. [basic.lookup.unqual]/7 says
A name used in the definition of a class X outside of a member function
body or nested class definition [This refers to unqualified names following the
class name; such a name may be used in the base-clause or may be used in the
class definition.] ...
So, the name of the base class *is* used in the derived class and as such, must not be
redefined throughout the whole class; in your example, "super" is violating
that rule.
Note that no diagnostic is required for violation of this rule, so the compiler
might just accept it. However, it is still invalid code and gcc is right to
reject it.
Regards
Jiří Paleček
