Hi Daniel,
> I think that I (as C++ maintainer rather than testsuite maintainer)
> need to figure out what the correct output is.
Well, actually, the manual should specify the output of ptype,
and you should implement the manual, and I should test to the manual.
Without a written spec, we have to thrash this out among ourselves.
> "InnerLocal::NestedInnerLocal nest1" is not actually valid C++ in
> general, I don't believe; what if there is a class
> InnerLocal::InnerLocal::NestedInnerLocal?
Fortunately for us, that is not legal C++. gcc 2.96-rh and gcc 3.1
both give me a "duplicate nested type" error.
I admit this is a technicality. But for purposes of human readability,
it means that "InnerLocal::NestedInnerLocal nest1" will behave according
to the expectations of a reasonable human reader.
> This is also uglier; for std:: types there's going to be a lot of
> useless noise.
It's useful noise if the user has their own type with the same name
as a std:: type.
> By this logic, InnerLocal::NestedInnerLocal deserves a KFAIL comment
> for the moment, since the code to do this is not yet present.
I don't think it's a failure at all.
Frankly, if we do decide it's a failure, I'd rather just leave it as
a FAIL for a while. I don't want to add a bunch more regular expressions
and file a bug report just to make it a different kind of failure.
We're at an impasse here ... does anyone else have an opinion?
Michael C
|
