Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly
Appearance settings

[dcl.meaning.general] Improve clarity of presentation #4611

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
Loading
from
Open

[dcl.meaning.general] Improve clarity of presentation #4611

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8eed6e8
[dcl.meaning.general] Make the nested if/otherwises in the description
zygoloid May 25, 2021
60e2a60
[dcl.meaning.general] Move the "terminal name in a declarator-id is not
zygoloid May 26, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
[dcl.meaning.general] Move the "terminal name in a declarator-id is not 
looked up" wording earlier and explicitly call out the special cases.
  • Loading branch information
@zygoloid
zygoloid committed May 26, 2021
commit 60e2a60fce21201e8f7f8d2df4d7ab61ee26e3ee
21 changes: 12 additions & 9 deletions 21 source/declarations.tex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2460,6 +2460,8 @@
\indextext{declaration!type}%
A declarator contains exactly one \grammarterm{declarator-id};
it names the entity that is declared.
The terminal name of the \grammarterm{declarator-id} is not looked up
except as specified below.
If the \grammarterm{unqualified-id} occurring in a \grammarterm{declarator-id}
is a \grammarterm{template-id},
the declarator shall appear in the \grammarterm{declaration} of a
Expand All @@ -2484,8 +2486,9 @@
a \grammarterm{qualified-id} or a \grammarterm{template-id}:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The terminal name of the \grammarterm{declarator-id} is looked up.
If the friend declaration is not a template declaration,
then in the lookup for the terminal name of $E$:
then in this name lookup:
\begin{itemize}
\item
if the \grammarterm{unqualified-id} in $E$ is a \grammarterm{template-id},
Expand All @@ -2507,8 +2510,8 @@
the target scope of the \grammarterm{declarator} is that scope.
\end{itemize}
\item
Otherwise, the terminal name of $E$ is not looked up.
The declaration's target scope is the innermost enclosing namespace scope.
Otherwise,
the declaration's target scope is the innermost enclosing namespace scope.
If the declaration is contained by a block scope,
the declaration shall correspond to a declaration
that inhabits the innermost block scope.
Expand All @@ -2533,11 +2536,12 @@
If the \grammarterm{declarator} declares
an explicit instantiation or a partial or explicit specialization,
the \grammarterm{declarator} does not bind a name.
Comment on lines 2536 to 2538
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is actually redundant: such declarations do not introduce names ([temp.explicit]/5, [temp.expl.spec]/4, and [temp.spec.partial.general]/7), so [basic.scope.scope]/2.5 ignores them already. This is relevant because it is an opportunity to merge into the next sentence (once we're sure exactly what we mean it to mean).

If such a \grammarterm{declarator} declares a class member,
the terminal name of the \grammarterm{declarator-id} is not looked up;
otherwise, only those lookup results that are nominable in $S$
If such a \grammarterm{declarator} does not declare a class member,
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@opensdh I tried to figure out why we're treating class members differently from non-class-members here and didn't succeed. Perhaps an example would help? I'm also not sure how we're supposed to handle an explicit specialization of a class member template without performing name lookup. Was the intent here instead that if the specialization or instantiation is for a non-template member of a class template specialization, no lookup is performed?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that you're right: we do have to do the lookup for the same reason that we have to do it when encountering template<> my_namespace::my_class< since it might continue int>::sub_template<int> { or just int> {. You're probably right about the intent too, but I'm less clear on that at the moment. (My plan is to, tomorrow, look at your wording here and see if I see any problems with it of a similar sort; if not, it stands to reason that it reflects the intent better.)

the terminal name of the \grammarterm{declarator-id} is looked up,
and only those lookup results that are nominable in $S$
are considered when identifying
any function template specialization being declared\iref{temp.deduct.decl}.
any function or variable template specialization
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@opensdh Was the different treatment of function and variable template specializations intended?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It was (although that doesn't guarantee that it's good to do so!). The idea is that we do ordinary lookup for the name before the < (and for an explicit specialization/instantiation without an explicit template argument list, for consistency): if we find a variable template, it must be the unique lookup result, so there isn't any reason to disqualify that one result because of nominability. I think we did talk about this in the review, but I can't find the minutes for it.

being declared\iref{temp.deduct.decl}.
\begin{example}
\begin{codeblock}
namespace N {
Expand All @@ -2557,8 +2561,7 @@
\end{example}
\item
Otherwise,
the terminal name of the \grammarterm{declarator-id} is not looked up.
If it is a qualified name,
if the terminal name of the \grammarterm{declarator-id} is a qualified name,
the \grammarterm{declarator} shall correspond to
one or more declarations nominable in $S$;
all the declarations shall have the same target scope and
Expand Down
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.