"declaratio n of 'foo' changes meaning from 'struct foo'"

[vilhelm.sjoberg]

Hello,

I am a resonably confident C programmer, but not very sure about the
dark corners of C++. Recently, I had G++ give me a strange error.

The program in question is in essence:

struct foo {
};

struct bar {
foo foo;
};

That is, I try to declare a member variable called "foo". However, G++
complains that:

Foo.C:5: error: declaration of `foo bar::foo'
Foo.C:1: error: changes meaning of `foo' from `struct foo'

Changing the line to

struct foo foo;

makes the compiler happy. However, Microsoft Visual C++ does not give
any error at all for the code.

So, which compiler is right here? If G++ is correct, what rule of C++
am I violating, and what is the reason this restriction was introduced?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

--
Vilhelm Sjöberg

[Peter_Julian]

<vi************ *@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ g47g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

| The program in question is in essence:
|
| struct foo {
| };
|
| struct bar {
| foo foo;
| };
<snip>
| So, which compiler is right here? If G++ is correct, what rule of C++
| am I violating, and what is the reason this restriction was
introduced?

Which compiler is correct is not the issue here. A type is not a
variable. Perhaps the best solution involves a better identifier
convention. The last issue you want to deal with (whether you wrote the
code or you are a client of the code) is whether foo refers to the type
or to the variable.

struct Foo
{
};

struct Bar
{
Foo foo;
};

int main()
{
Bar bar;
}

I'ld rather not rely on a particular compiler's warnings or errors to
follow a set of rules as fundamental as a clear naming convention.

[mlimber]

vi************* @gmail.com wrote:

Hello,

I am a resonably confident C programmer, but not very sure about the
dark corners of C++. Recently, I had G++ give me a strange error.

The program in question is in essence:

struct foo {
};

struct bar {
foo foo;
};

That is, I try to declare a member variable called "foo". However, G++
complains that:

Foo.C:5: error: declaration of `foo bar::foo'
Foo.C:1: error: changes meaning of `foo' from `struct foo'

Changing the line to

struct foo foo;

makes the compiler happy. However, Microsoft Visual C++ does not give
any error at all for the code.

So, which compiler is right here? If G++ is correct, what rule of C++
am I violating, and what is the reason this restriction was introduced?

I tried it on VC++ and EDG at dinkumware.com as well as at Comeau
online. None give an error, so I suspect g++ is less conformant at this
point. That said, it is *bad* style to try something like that.

Cheers! --M

[Dave Rahardja]

On 10 Sep 2005 17:11:05 -0700, "mlimber" <ml*****@gmail. com> wrote:

Changing the line to

struct foo foo;

makes the compiler happy. However, Microsoft Visual C++ does not give
any error at all for the code.

So, which compiler is right here? If G++ is correct, what rule of C++
am I violating, and what is the reason this restriction was introduced?

I tried it on VC++ and EDG at dinkumware.com as well as at Comeau
online. None give an error, so I suspect g++ is less conformant at this
point. That said, it is *bad* style to try something like that.

I think you're right. The standard mentions other occasions where reusing an
already-declared identifier in a different context is acceptable:

7.1

2 The longest sequence of decl-specifiers that could possibly be a type name
is taken as the decl-specifier-seq of a declaration. The sequence shall be
self-consistent as described below.

[Example:
typedef char* Pc;
static Pc; // error: name missing

Here, the declaration static Pc is ill-formed because no name was specified
for the static variable of type Pc. To get a variable called Pc, a
type-specifier (other than const or volatile) has to be present to indicate
that the typedef-name Pc is the name being (re)declared, rather than being
part of the decl-specifier sequence. For another example,

void f(const Pc); // void f(char* const) (not const char*)
void g(const int Pc); // void g(const int)
—end example]

3 [Note: since signed, unsigned, long, and short by default imply int, a
type-name appearing after one of those specifiers is treated as the name being
(re)declared.

[Example:
void h(unsigned Pc); // void h(unsigned int)
void k(unsigned int Pc); // void k(unsigned int)
—end example] —end note]

So I the following is perfectly legal:

typedef foo int;

int f()
{
foo foo;
foo = 2;
}

Although it is EXTREMELY poor naming style.

-dr

[Kyle]

[snip]

So I the following is perfectly legal:

typedef foo int;
typedef int foo;

int f()
{
foo foo;
foo = 2;
}

Although it is EXTREMELY poor naming style.
but looks fun, doesnt it ? <:

-dr

[Dave Rahardja]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:42:18 +0200, Kyle <in*****@e.mail > wrote:

[snip]

So I the following is perfectly legal:

typedef foo int;

typedef int foo;

Why is "dyslexia" so hard to spell?

-dr