------- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-15 00:55 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> 1) bar:: looks like valid C++ syntax but it is not a valid
> nested-name-specifier, so it should be something that is not valid C++ syntax,
> such as {bar}::Py_ssize_t
True, but {bar}:: is still confusing. If someone does a patch with that, so be
it, but I would prefer a different syntax. Or even two extra notes like:
t.cc: 7: note: 'Py_ssize_t*' (typedef for 'int*') defined here.
t.cc: 1: note: 'Py_ssize_t*' (typedef for 'long*') defined here.
so it is easy to jump to the definitions.
> 2) Although the quotes _should_ make it clear, I think that could get
> confusing
>
> How about adding "typedef for" in there? e.g.
>
> cannot convert 'bar::Py_ssize_t*' (typedef for 'int*')
Perfect!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44122
