[class.mem] Define complete-class context #2231
Conversation
| contract condition\iref{dcl.attr.contract}, | ||
| or nested class definition\footnote{This refers to unqualified names | ||
| following the class name; such a name may be used in the | ||
| \grammarterm{base-clause} or may be used in the class definition.} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the removal of this footnote intentional? Clarifying that this covers the base-specifiers seems at least moderately useful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seemed so... obvious to me, but we seem to have several similar footnotes in the vicinity. Restored.
| @@ -1404,11 +1395,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| \pnum | |||
| For the members of a class \tcode{X}, a name used | |||
| in a member function body, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whoops, we meant "function body" here, not "member function body". This is technically a normative change, but it's obvious that the new wording is correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, we're good here, right?
and use it, instead of having separate redundant lists in [basic.scope.class] and [basic.lookup.unqual].
| complete-class context\iref{class.mem} of \tcode{X}\footnote{This | ||
| refers to unqualified names following the class name; | ||
| such a name may be used in the \grammarterm{base-clause} or | ||
| may be used in the class definition.} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This (pre-existing) footnote text is appalling :(
"A name used in the definition of a class [...] refers to [...] a name used in the base-clause or [...] in the class definition".
What? So "in the definition of a class" is a broader syntactic category than "in the class definition"? I'll fix that after merging.
and use it, instead of having separate redundant lists
in [basic.scope.class] and [basic.lookup.unqual].
Fixes #2107.