--- Comment #7 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:29 ---
I would think so.
--
bangerth at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-10 11:34
---
(In reply to comment #0)
To my mind statement
test.cpp: In constructor 'testclass::testclass()':
test.cpp:4: error: class 'testclass' does not have any field named 'number'
is redundant because statements
--- Comment #3 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-10 11:35
---
(In reply to comment #2)
Note that if you put the declaration of 'int number;' first then Comeau has a
very similar error to GCC's when the member function is first - it complains
about the invalid member
--- Comment #4 from b0ntrict0r at yandex dot ru 2009-08-10 14:16 ---
Thank you for your explanation.
(In reply to comment #2)
The errors for lines 9 and 15 relate to the duplicate declaration of a member
with the name 'number', whereas the error on line 4 refers to the invalid
--- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-10 14:44
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Those are seperate errors of course. I've meant that when compiler already
discovered that there is a conflict between number and number() it looks like
it's keeping on emitting errors
--- Comment #6 from b0ntrict0r at yandex dot ru 2009-08-10 15:02 ---
I've got your point, thank you. So if
(In reply to comment #5)
in general it would be
very difficult for the compiler to determine if individual errors are caused
by
an earlier error and suppress them
--- Comment #1 from b0ntrict0r at yandex dot ru 2009-08-07 18:11 ---
By the way using gcc instead of g++ doesn't changed things.
And I've just tested this code with Comeau online C++ compiler and it gave
exactly what I want to get:
Comeau C/C++ 4.3.10.1 (Oct 6 2008 11:28:09) for
