------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-03-14 16:25
-------
The place to look at is 12.6.2/2:
2 Names in a mem-initializer-id are looked up in the scope of the
constructor's class and, if not found in that scope, are looked up in
the scope containing the constructor's definition. [Note: if the
constructor's class contains a member with the same name as a direct
or virtual base class of the class, a mem-initializer-id naming the
member or base class and composed of a single identifier refers to the
class member. A mem-initializer-id for the hidden base class may be
specified using a qualified name. ] Unless the mem-initializer-id
names a nonstatic data member of the constructor's class or a direct
or virtual base of that class, the mem-initializer is ill-formed. A
mem-initializer-list can initialize a base class using any name that
denotes that base class type.
Obviously, in the scope of the constructor, both the name of the base
class and the name of the member of foo are visible. The standard specifies
that this then denotes the member variable, and the sentence after that
states that this is then an error because the variable is not one of the
present class.
In other words, gcc's behavior is correct even though there would be an
unambiguous resolution in this very particular case.
W.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20330
