Oliver Kullmann writes:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:59:56AM -0700, Dave Steffen wrote:
Boris Burger writes:
Hello, the issue with extra semicolons at namespace or class scope is surely nothing new and has been discussed extensively.
Yes, I was one of the instigators... [...] In fact, I don't think there's a way to lower warning levels to _just_ get rid of the semicolon complaints; you'd also be turning off warnings you want. The only solution I found was to either
A) remove the semicolon, or B) to use a macro definition
A) is easiest, but may make people's editors unhappy.
Hi,
I was following the first investigations some time ago not very closely, but I didn't realise (until lately) that removing the semicolon at namespace scope is actually required by the language definition.
Right, that's the whole point of the discussion. This isn't GCC being too picky or anything like that. GCC 3.4 is correct; that semicolon _really_ isn't allowed there. Seriously. No kidding. We mean it. :-)
So I think there is no way out: If there is a conflict between text editor and language definition, then the text editor must retreat.
Well, we've had that discussion. Until some emacs lisp experts get involved, a lot of people will have issues. :-) What I've done - and this was the solution I posted earlier - was come up with a (clever, ugly) hack that allows the semicolon. That is, you put something clever at the end of the macro definition that requires a following semicolon but doesn't do anything else. Then you can A) put semicolons after macros where you (and your text editor) want them, and B) adhere to the standard and keep GCC happy. No emacs hacking needed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Steffen, Ph.D. On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: Software Engineer IV Numerica Corporation "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." ph (970) 419-8343 x27 fax (970) 223-6797 -- Wolfgang Pauli dgsteffen@numerica.us ______________________ Numerica Disclaimer: This message and any attachments are intended only for the individual or entity to which the message is addressed. It is proprietary and may contain privileged information. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon, the information in this communication is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you feel you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning this Email to the sender and deleting it from your computer.