On 05/14/2011 02:19 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
Cool, thanks! I'm not quite sure whether there are ambiguities in the case of elaborate-specifiers, but I suppose those can be fixed later.
Good point. In the case that !cp_parser_next_token_starts_class_definition_p, we should rewind to before what we parsed as virt-specifiers.
Should these facilities be somehow flagged 0x-only? I haven't done that at all..
Yes, we should maybe_warn_cpp0x about them.
Somebody should probably update the C++0x status page, and refer to N3206 rather than to N2928 for explicit virtual overrides, and mark it done?
Will do. Jason
