On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Nicola Pero
wrote:
> I just implemented "fast enumeration" (ie, "for (object in array) { ... }")
> for Objective-C, and I was now planning on doing it for Objective-C++ too. ;-)
>
> If you're doing range-based for-loops for C++, we may as well share ideas ;-)
Actual
>> Ah, yes. So we should share the parsing of the decl-specifier-seq with the
>> C-style for loop, which allows us to avoid the tentative parsing.
>
> That was my original idea, but the C-style loop calls
> cp_parser_simple_declaration(), that shouts at the ':'. So we should
> either modify it to
On 10/04/2010 10:59 AM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
Admittedly, this is not a "trailing_return_type", but AFAICT it has
exactly the same restrictions.
The restrictions are slightly different; in the case of a trailing return
type a class-specifier is not one of the expansions, so we don't treat a {
as
> Ah, yes. So we should share the parsing of the decl-specifier-seq with the
> C-style for loop, which allows us to avoid the tentative parsing.
That was my original idea, but the C-style loop calls
cp_parser_simple_declaration(), that shouts at the ':'. So we should
either modify it to accept the
On 10/02/2010 01:50 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
I would change cp_parser_range_for to use cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq
> instead of cp_parser_type_specifier_seq and then wait to complain about
> defining a type until after we've seen the ':'.
I already tried that, but it didn't work. It seemed to m
2010/10/1 Jason Merrill :
> It took me some searching, but yes, it does:
>
> "A type-specifier-seq shall not define a class or enumeration unless it
> appears in the type-id of an alias-declaration (7.1.3)."
>
> Normal declarations don't have a type-specifier-seq, they have a
> decl-specifier-seq.
On 09/20/2010 07:06 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
Are you sure? As I said in other post, I am no longer sure that the
C++0x draft forbids the type definition in this context.
But I'm no expert in standarese, so I'm still undecided.
It took me some searching, but yes, it does:
"A type-specifier-seq
> You do not need exceptions to implement what I said, just to return a
> value. A boolean would suffice to detect whether you parsed a
> definition.
Sure, I was talking generally.
> The "before whatever" is hardcoded. And tentative parsing is
> thoroughly abused in the parser.
Well, I tried to par
On 21 September 2010 01:06, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
>>> The easy solution would be to remove the assignment to
>>> type_definition_forbidden_message and then check for this case
>>> particulary.
>>
>> cp_parser_type_specifier_seq could return some indication of why the
>> parsing has failed or whethe
>> The easy solution would be to remove the assignment to
>> type_definition_forbidden_message and then check for this case
>> particulary.
>
> cp_parser_type_specifier_seq could return some indication of why the
> parsing has failed or whether it has parsed a declaration. This is
> much more usefu
On 20 September 2010 20:19, Rodrigo wrote:
>> Well, yes, this is true but there is still the issue that
>>
>> void f() {
>> for(class C{};;)
>> ;
>> }
>>
>> generates the message
>>
>> error: types may not be defined in range-based for loops
>>
>> when compiled with -std=c++0x and no patches and
On second reading of the C++0x draft in cannot find any reason of what
the new type in range-fors should not be allowed.
Maybe someone can read it differently?
Regard.
Rodrigo
> Well, yes, this is true but there is still the issue that
>
> void f() {
> for(class C{};;)
> ;
> }
>
> generates the message
>
> error: types may not be defined in range-based for loops
>
> when compiled with -std=c++0x and no patches and that is odd since this
> loop isn't range-based.
Oh
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 10:39 +0200, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> > This is quite unreadable and not very informative.
> Totally agree.
>
> > Here there are two problems...
> > snipped
>
> I think that you are taking the wrong approach: you call
> "cp_parser_range_for" with C++98 and then if such a loop
> This is quite unreadable and not very informative.
Totally agree.
> Here there are two problems...
> snipped
I think that you are taking the wrong approach: you call
"cp_parser_range_for" with C++98 and then if such a loop is parsed
(the ':') you issue an error.
Maybe you should try to add the
Hello.
At the moment compilation of a range-based for in c++98 fails with the
error message:
foo.cpp: In function 'int foo()':
foo.cpp:4:13: error: expected initializer before ':' token
foo.cpp:6:1: error: expected primary-expression before '}' token
foo.cpp:6
16 matches
Mail list logo
