--- Comment #5 from coppro at users dot sf dot net 2009-08-14 05:41 ---
Jonathan Wakely appears to be correct. My apologies!
--
coppro at users dot sf dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-12 09:41
---
I think maybe the second example is rejected because of 2) not 3)
2) A name N used in a class S shall refer to the same declaration in its
context and when re-evaluated in the
completed scope of S. No diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-12 09:28 ---
Use -fpermissive.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41039
--- Comment #2 from coppro at users dot sf dot net 2009-08-12 06:26 ---
[basic.scope.class]:
3) If reordering member declarations in a class yields an alternate valid
program under (1) and (2), the program is ill-formed, no diagnostic is
required.
Otherwise, the program is well-formed,
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-12 06:15 ---
> because there is nothing to reorder, so the meaning of bar cannot possibly
> change.
But the rule is not designed that way IIRC. Even if it is too strict I think
that is the correct way of doing things.
--
h
