On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Fariborz Jahanian<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:41 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Fariborz Jahanian<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 29, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Fariborz Jahanian<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> We have to build the node because otherwise, there isn't anywhere in >>>> the AST for the initializers to live. In the dependent case, yes, we >>> >>> Of course we need to build the initializer. Focus of the question is when >>> we have dependent type initializers. >>>> >>>> could skip all analysis; if we did that, though, we would miss a class >>>> of errors which could be detected earlier, specifically the case where >>>> a member that requires an initializer doesn't have one. >>> >>> We don't need to skip the analysis. We just don't build >>> BaseOrMemberInitializers if >>> there is even one dependent case. >> >> Where exactly are you proposing the initializers should be? As far as >> I can tell, we don't keep them in any other place in the AST. > > We keep it where it is. We just don't build it when processing templates. We > build it > when instantiating templates.
Build what? If we don't build BaseOrMemberInitializers, the initializers aren't in the AST, gone, forever! -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
