Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!apple!usc!wuarchive!decwrl!lll-winken!sundance.llnl.gov!jac
From: jac@sundance.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: GNU bug?
Message-ID: <67781@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 11 Sep 90 07:32:05 GMT
References: <20088@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 38

In article <20088@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> budd@mist.cs.orst.edu (Tim Budd) writes:
[example deleted]
>The compiler complains with the curious message that an operator name is
>missing on the line ``A::op...'' in class B.  My reading of Ellis and
>Stroustrup is that this should be legal.  Which is wrong, me or GNU?

  I reported a similar bug on gnu.g++ some time back. The example
was from some C++ 2.0 code which works on the Mac and under Sun C++,
and which I'd like to compile with G++ for comparison. Roughly the
example was:

class Array {
  //....
  float &operator[](int i) {...}
  }

class User {

  //...

  static Array B(100);
  }

User::B[5] = 6;   // This generated an error.

Anyway the type of error was the same...we'd overloaded an operator
and later tried to use that operator on an Array which was a 
static member of another class, and g++ couldn't parse it. It
has been awhile and can't recall the exact error (or the precise
details of the code, so the above may exactly represent the
problem we had). 

  Jim
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Crotinger   Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab // The above views 
jac@gandalf.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630     \\ // are mine and are not 
(415) 422-0259       Livermore CA  94550       \\/ necessarily those of LLNL.