Here is some piece of code I'm not sure, if its legal. Some
compilers complain, others don't. I could not find a clear
statement in the ARM.

class Outer {
protected:
   class Inner {
       ...
   };

   Inner f();
};


Some compilers now complain when defining function f

Outer::Inner f()
{...}


To me it makes perfectly sense in having a nested class as return
type. Since function f itself a protected member the nested
type could never get outside the scope of the class.

Any comments?


Martin

--


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+   Martin Lang                       |   Martin Lang                       +
+   Universitaet Stuttgart, IND       |   University of Stuttgart, IND      +
+   Institut fuer Nachrichtenverm.    |   Institute of Communications       +
+   und Datenverarbeitung             |   Switching and Data Technics       +
+   Seidenstrasse 36                  |   Seidenstrasse 36                  +
+   D-70174 Stuttgart                 |   D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany        +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+                                                                           +
+                      Phone: +49 711 121 2490                              +
+                      Fax  : +49 711 121 2477                              +
+                      Email: lang@ind.e-technik.uni-stuttgart.de           +
+                                                                           +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++