Applied (with a few formatting tweaks).
Thanks,
Jason
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 04:50 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
>>
>> Because the type of the expression must have complete type *only* if
>> it is an array.
>
> Actually, if it has class type, it must also have a complete type or the
> class member lookup is i
On 04/11/2011 04:50 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
Because the type of the expression must have complete type *only* if
it is an array.
Actually, if it has class type, it must also have a complete type or the
class member lookup is ill-formed. And you can't pass an expression of
void type to a fun
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> + error ("range-based % expression must have complete
>> type");
>> + error ("range-based % expression has an % member "
>> + "but not a %");
>
> Let's give the type of the range initializer in these error m
Looks good, just a couple of tweaks:
On 04/06/2011 07:22 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
+ error ("range-based % expression must have complete type");
+ error ("range-based % expression has an % member "
+ "but not a %");
Let's give the type of the range initializer
Hi!
It took some time but I finally re-wrote the patch and added a few testsuites.
A few comments as usual:
I've moved the array stuff into cp_parser_perform_range_for_lookup. I
think that it belongs there: it's just a special lookup case .
I finally agreed with Jason about calling lookup_member
On 31 March 2011 21:22, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 03/28/2011 08:28 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
>>>
>>> A few comments:
>>> 1. I'm not sure about what should happen if the begin/end found in class
>>> scope are not ordinary functions.
>>
>> What
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 08:28 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
>>
>> A few comments:
>> 1. I'm not sure about what should happen if the begin/end found in class
>> scope are not ordinary functions.
>
> Whatever range.begin() would mean if written explicitly.
>
On 03/28/2011 08:28 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
A few comments:
1. I'm not sure about what should happen if the begin/end found in class
scope are not ordinary functions.
Whatever range.begin() would mean if written explicitly.
My guess is that if it is a function
(static or non-static) it is ca
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Thank you for your suggestions!
IMO, error cases 3 (hey, two 3s!), 4 and 6 are not so likely, as
including any STL container header will make a begin and an end
functions declared, though maybe not usabe. In these cases the most
probable err
On 29 March 2011 21:33, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> How about "No suitable % and % functions found for range
>> expression of type %qT in % statement" ?
>
> Nice.
> But the problem here is that there are a lot of different error conditions:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> How about "No suitable % and % functions found for range
> expression of type %qT in % statement" ?
Nice.
But the problem here is that there are a lot of different error conditions:
1. begin member but not end member.
2. end member but not
On 29 March 2011 17:41, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
>
> Maybe a simpler error is better. such as:
> "expression is not valid as range in a range-based % loop
> because it lacks begin/end members or begin(int&) and end(int&)
> overloads." (I leave the wording to someone more skilled with
> English).
If yo
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> or "new-style for loop"?
Well, that is what they are called in Java, isn't it? And the syntax
is just the same, so it would make kind of sense.
But in the C++0x draft and the GCC docs it is almost always called
"range-based for loops, so I
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Rodrigo Rivas
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> Should we consistently refer to % so the keyword is highlighted?
> Now that you say... I've not been quite consistent. We could say
> "range-based %", with only a dash between 'r
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Should we consistently refer to % so the keyword is highlighted?
Now that you say... I've not been quite consistent. We could say
"range-based %", with only a dash between 'range' and 'based'.
On 29 March 2011 01:49, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> Hi again.
>
> Here it is my first try at this. I have changed the list to
> gcc-patches, I don't know if cross post would be correct.
> Please, note that this patch is not finished: the new test cases are
> still missing, and expect format mistakes, mi
Hi again.
Here it is my first try at this. I have changed the list to
gcc-patches, I don't know if cross post would be correct.
Please, note that this patch is not finished: the new test cases are
still missing, and expect format mistakes, misspellings and the
like...
A few comments:
1. I'm not
18 matches
Mail list logo
