• Matthew (4/5) Dec 09 2005 `
• Walter Bright (2/2) Dec 09 2005 It's supposed to be an error.
• Matthew (6/8) Dec 09 2005 Well, I did leave the gate in my mind open for the possibility of being
• Walter Bright (4/10) Dec 10 2005 I don't remember, just that the allowance for multiple declarations of t...
• Matthew (9/21) Dec 10 2005 Which
• Walter Bright (11/34) Dec 10 2005 being
• Matthew (9/47) Dec 10 2005 type
• Walter Bright (16/21) Dec 11 2005 more

"Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

begin 666 dmmultiplemembertypedefbug.cpp



`
end

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

It's supposed to be an error.

BTW, the C++ standard does not require any warnings.

"Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:dndu5o$2t25$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's supposed to be an error.

Well, I did leave the gate in my mind open for the possibility of being
wrong (because I couldn't muster the effort to trawl the standard). Which
clause relates?

 BTW, the C++ standard does not require any warnings.

Indeed. ;-)

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:dne1ba$2vjk$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:dndu5o$2t25$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's supposed to be an error.

 Well, I did leave the gate in my mind open for the possibility of being
 wrong (because I couldn't muster the effort to trawl the standard). Which
 clause relates?

I don't remember, just that the allowance for multiple declarations of the
same name is for global names.

"Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:dnfnep$2vjr$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
 news:dne1ba$2vjk$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:dndu5o$2t25$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's supposed to be an error.

 Well, I did leave the gate in my mind open for the possibility of being
 wrong (because I couldn't muster the effort to trawl the standard).


Which
 clause relates?

 I don't remember, just that the allowance for multiple declarations of the
 same name is for global names.

Sorry, buddy. I think you're wrong.

Clause 7.1.3;2 states "In a given scope, a typedef specifier can be used to
redefine the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to the type to
which it already refers".

There's no mention of this rule being applicable to global or namespace
scope only.

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:dnfsi9$2pn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:dnfnep$2vjr$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
 news:dne1ba$2vjk$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:dndu5o$2t25$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's supposed to be an error.

 Well, I did leave the gate in my mind open for the possibility of



being
 wrong (because I couldn't muster the effort to trawl the standard).


 Which
 clause relates?

 I don't remember, just that the allowance for multiple declarations of


the
 same name is for global names.

 Sorry, buddy. I think you're wrong.

 Clause 7.1.3;2 states "In a given scope, a typedef specifier can be used

to
 redefine the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to the type

to
 which it already refers".

 There's no mention of this rule being applicable to global or namespace
 scope only.

C++ 9.2-1 sez: "A member shall not be declared twice in the
member-specification, except that a nested class or member class template
can be declared and then later defined." 9.2-1 also specifically says that
typedef's are considered members of a class.

Check!

"Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:dngccp$gv6$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
 news:dnfsi9$2pn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:dnfnep$2vjr$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
 news:dne1ba$2vjk$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:dndu5o$2t25$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's supposed to be an error.

 Well, I did leave the gate in my mind open for the possibility of



 being
 wrong (because I couldn't muster the effort to trawl the standard).


 Which
 clause relates?

 I don't remember, just that the allowance for multiple declarations of


 the
 same name is for global names.

 Sorry, buddy. I think you're wrong.

 Clause 7.1.3;2 states "In a given scope, a typedef specifier can be used

 to
 redefine the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to the


type
 to
 which it already refers".

 There's no mention of this rule being applicable to global or namespace
 scope only.

 C++ 9.2-1 sez: "A member shall not be declared twice in the
 member-specification, except that a nested class or member class template
 can be declared and then later defined." 9.2-1 also specifically says that
 typedef's are considered members of a class.

 Check!

I'm happy to topple the king on this one. :-)

I think it could still be argued either way, but I find 9.2;1 to be more
specific than 7.1.3;2, and common sense should incline us to go for the more
specific.

Seems like writing a standard is probably even harder than reading one.
Something to bear in mind ...

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthew" <matthew hat.stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:dngf7c$j3h$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think it could still be argued either way, but I find 9.2;1 to be more
 specific than 7.1.3;2, and common sense should incline us to go for the

more
 specific.

I think it's nothing more than a contradiction in the standard that should
be corrected with the next one. If one intends to write conforming code, one
should take the most restrictive as the rule. A compiler implementer should
implement the most expansive rule. I'm inclined to leave this one as it is
in DMC++, however, because other C++ compilers disallow it, and because I
can't think of a need to allow it.

For the global case, however, it is a needed feature as a kludge to make up
for the lack of true modules in C++. It enables things like:
    typedef unsigned short wchar_t;
to appear in multiple .h files without a complex macro system that allows
only one of them to be 'active.'

 Seems like writing a standard is probably even harder than reading one.
 Something to bear in mind ...

Yup. It's as difficult to write it to be bug-free as writing the software
itself.