Alain Miniussi wrote:

> struct X {
>   struct A;
>   struct B { int f(A& p) { return p.i; } };
>   struct A {int i;};
> };

This one is ok.

> struct X {
>   struct A;
>   struct B { int f(A& p) { return p.i; } };
> };
>
> struct X::A {int i;};

This one is not: A is incomplete in the definition
of X::B::f(A&).

--

Valentin Bonnard                mailto:bonnardv@pratique.fr
info about C++/a propos du C++: http://pages.pratique.fr/~bonnardv/


[ 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              ]

is the following code correct ?

struct X {
  struct A;
  struct B { int f(A& p) { return p.i; } };
  struct A {int i;};
};

I mean, according to the draft, X is a completly defined
class in the definition of A::B::f. Does this imply that
X::A is also completly defined ? (and that you can use p.i)

What I want to know is if the fact that a class is
completly defined imply that the corresponding nested classes
are completly defined ?

If the answer is  yes (i don't think so),  what about that code ?:

struct X {
  struct A;
  struct B { int f(A& p) { return p.i; } };
};

struct X::A {int i;}; // can you ask to the compiler to look
  // that class definition then parsing X::B::f ? probably not.

I think the answer is no, but then, the first code is incorrect,
but I can find only one compiler that agree with that answer.

Alain
---
[ 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              ]