On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
> All of this makes a lot of sense to me. I like the unifying concept
> of context here, from the TranslationUnit level and down, and I like
> having NamespaceDecls having an enclosing context, etc., so that one
> can easily traverse the namespace hierarchy. I'm curious, how would
> the following be handled:
>
> namespace foo {
> class F { public: void foo(); };
> }
>
> using namespace foo;
>
> void F::foo() {}
>
> What would the "ContextDecl" be for the decl representing the
> definition of foo? Would it be a NamespaceDecl, or a
> TranslationUnitDecl? If it is a NamespaceDecl, is it the same
> NamespaceDecl as the one enclosing the class definition? I'm sorry if
> this has already been discussed; I'm trying to wrap my mind around
> what exactly a ContextDecl is, as it seems to represents both a
> syntactic construct and a language concept.
I think I understand this better. NamespaceDecl doesn't have a direct
syntactic mapping, but represents a concept. Also, the ContextDecl
for the method definition of foo would be its ClassDecl, not the
NamespaceDecl.
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
