Created on 1998-09-15.00:00:00 last changed 307 months ago
Rationale (04/99): It is sufficiently clear that "name" includes qualified names and hence the usual lookup rules make this legal.
Consider this code:
struct Base {
enum { a, b, c, next };
};
struct Derived : public Base {
enum { d = Base::next, e, f, next };
};
The idea is that the enumerator "next" in each class is the next available
value for enumerators in further derived classes.
If we had written
enum { d = next, e, f, next };
I think we would run afoul of 6.4.7 [basic.scope.class]
:
A name N used in a class S shall refer to the same declaration in its context and when re-evaluated in the completed scope of S. No diagnostic is required for a violation of this rule.But in the original code, we don't have an unqualified "next" that refers to anything but the current scope. I think the intent was to allow the code, but I don't find the wording clear on on that point.
Is there another section that makes it clear whether the original code is valid? Or am I being obtuse? Or should the quoted section say "An unqualified name N used in a class ..."?
Rationale (04/99): It is sufficiently clear that "name" includes qualified names and hence the usual lookup rules make this legal.
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 1999-09-14 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg186 |
| 1999-09-14 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: drafting -> nad |
| 1998-09-15 00:00:00 | admin | create | |