Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!dptg!pegasus!psrc
From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: explicit class name allowed in member function declaration?
Message-ID: <4169@pegasus.ATT.COM>
Date: 15 Oct 89 03:25:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 18

// The following appears to work in AT&T cfront 2.0.  I don't know why
// anyone would want to do such a thing (I found source code I wrote
// littered with this oddity, and can't remember why *I* wanted to do
// such a thing).  Is it reasonable, gross but legal, or should even
// cfront reject it?

class foo {
	int	i;	// I feel better with at least one member
public:
	// anyone normal would say:
	// foo()	{ i = 0; }
	// but I appear able to say instead:
	foo::foo()	{ i = 0; }
};

// Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
// att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
// I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.