On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > You're citing the wrong section of the standard in your patch. The relevant > wording is [dcl.stc]p1: "If a storage-class-specifier appears in a > decl-specifier-seq, [...] the init-declarator-list of the declaration shall > not be empty [...]."
Ah, good to know. I made it down to p9 because we were declaring a type instead of a member variable, but that makes sense. > Do we really need to change the code here? Is the new diagnostic better than > the old one? Old diagnostic: ext-warn "'mutable' is not permitted on a declaration of a type" Proposed diagnostic: error "'mutable' can only be applied to member variables" Honestly, either works for me in terms of wording. > Do we have a reason to promote this from ExtWarn to Error just > for mutable and not for other storage class specifiers? I was going with error because the other mutable constraint violations are also errors (including this existing one which I was reusing). Also, it seems weird to treat this as an extension -- what does this extension actually provide in terms of benefit for the mutable keyword? What does a mutable type declaration even mean? ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
