- Title
- Omitted typedef declarator
- Status
- open
- Section
- 9.1 [dcl.pre]
- Submitter
- Daveed Vandevoorde
Created on 1999-08-19.00:00:00 last changed 320 months ago
Messages
Date: 2022-02-18.07:47:23
9.1 [dcl.pre] paragraph 3 reads,
In a simple-declaration, the optional
init-declarator-list can be omitted only when... the
decl-specifier-seq contains either a class-specifier,
an elaborated-type-specifier with a class-key
(11.3 [class.name]
), or an
enum-specifier. In these cases and whenever a
class-specifier or enum-specifier is present in the
decl-specifier-seq, the identifiers in those specifiers are
among the names being declared by the declaration... In such cases,
and except for the declaration of an unnamed bit-field
(11.4.10 [class.bit]
), the
decl-specifier-seq shall introduce one or more names into the
program, or shall redeclare a name introduced by a previous
declaration. [Example:
enum { }; // ill-formed
typedef class { }; // ill-formed
—end example]
In the absence of any explicit restrictions in
9.2.4 [dcl.typedef]
, this paragraph appears
to allow declarations like the following:
typedef struct S { }; // no declarator
typedef enum { e1 }; // no declarator
In fact, the final example in
9.1 [dcl.pre] paragraph 3
would seem to
indicate that this is intentional: since it is illustrating the
requirement that the decl-specifier-seq must introduce a name
in declarations in which the init-declarator-list is omitted,
presumably the addition of a class name would have made the example
well-formed.
On the other hand, there is no good reason to allow such declarations; the only reasonable scenario in which they might occur is a mistake on the programmer's part, and it would be a service to the programmer to require that such errors be diagnosed.
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 1999-08-19 00:00:00 | admin | create | |