--- Comment #7 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:29 ---
I would think so.
--
bangerth at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIR
--- Comment #6 from b0ntrict0r at yandex dot ru 2009-08-10 15:02 ---
I've got your point, thank you. So if
(In reply to comment #5)
> in general it would be
> very difficult for the compiler to determine if individual errors are caused
> by
> an earlier error and suppress them condition
--- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-10 14:44
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Those are seperate errors of course. I've meant that when compiler already
> discovered that there is a conflict between number and number() it looks like
> it's keeping on emitting erro
--- Comment #4 from b0ntrict0r at yandex dot ru 2009-08-10 14:16 ---
Thank you for your explanation.
(In reply to comment #2)
> The errors for lines 9 and 15 relate to the duplicate declaration of a member
> with the name 'number', whereas the error on line 4 refers to the invalid
> me
--- Comment #3 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-10 11:35
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Note that if you put the declaration of 'int number;' first then Comeau has a
> very similar error to GCC's when the member function is first - it complains
> about the invalid member in
--- Comment #2 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-10 11:34
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> To my mind statement
> test.cpp: In constructor 'testclass::testclass()':
> test.cpp:4: error: class 'testclass' does not have any field named 'number'
> is redundant because stateme
--- Comment #1 from b0ntrict0r at yandex dot ru 2009-08-07 18:11 ---
By the way using gcc instead of g++ doesn't changed things.
And I've just tested this code with Comeau online C++ compiler and it gave
exactly what I want to get:
Comeau C/C++ 4.3.10.1 (Oct 6 2008 11:28:09) for ONLI
