Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> I can't find any explicit mention of this ambiguity in the spec.
>
> class C {
>   ~C();
>   void f ()
>     {
>       C::~C();    // redeclaration or expression-statement?
>     }
>   };

Section 9.3 p2: "Except for member function definitions, that appear
outside of a class definition, and except for explicit specializations
of template member functions (14.7) appearing outside of the class
defintion, a member function shall not be redeclared."

Therefore, it must be an expression-statement; no ambiguity, and
therefore no ambiguity resolution is needed.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net> writes:

> Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> >
> > I can't find any explicit mention of this ambiguity in the spec.
> >
> > class C {
> >   ~C();
> >   void f ()
> >     {
> >       C::~C();    // redeclaration or expression-statement?
> >     }
> >   };
>
> Section 9.3 p2: "Except for member function definitions, that appear
> outside of a class definition, and except for explicit specializations
> of template member functions (14.7) appearing outside of the class
> defintion, a member function shall not be redeclared."
>
> Therefore, it must be an expression-statement; no ambiguity, and
> therefore no ambiguity resolution is needed.

Ah, but is this a semantic restriction, or a syntactic one?  I think
"C::~C();" is still a syntactically correct simple-declaration
according to the grammar.  The ambiguity only happens with special
member functions that don't have a return type, so if you wanted to
disallow this at a syntactic level, the grammar ought to say

simple-declaration::
 decl-specifier-seq init-declarator-list(opt)

instead of what it actually says,

simple-declaration::
 decl-specifier-seq(opt) init-declarator-list(opt)

-Sandra
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

I can't find any explicit mention of this ambiguity in the spec.

class C {
  ~C();
  void f ()
    {
      C::~C();    // redeclaration or expression-statement?
    }
  };

The spec says that the ambiguity between a functional cast expression and
a declaration is resolved in favor of a declaration.  Is this one also
resolved as a declaration?

I am not sure how useful the interpretation as a declaration would be, but
of course you can say

      this->C::~C();

to unambiguously invoke the destructor instead.

-Sandra


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]