<HTML>
<HEAD>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>
    CWG Issue 254</TITLE>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
  INS { text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold; background-color:#A0FFA0 }
  .INS { text-decoration:none; background-color:#D0FFD0 }
  DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color:#FFA0A0 }
  .DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color: #FFD0D0 }
  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    HTML { background-color:#202020; color:#f0f0f0; }
    A { color:#5bc0ff; }
    A:visited { color:#c6a8ff; }
    A:hover, a:focus { color:#afd7ff; }
    INS { background-color:#033a16; color:#aff5b4; }
    .INS { background-color: #033a16; }
    DEL { background-color:#67060c; color:#ffdcd7; }
    .DEL { background-color:#67060c; }
  }
  SPAN.cmnt { font-family:Times; font-style:italic }
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><EM>This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21
  Core Issues List revision 118b.
  See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official
  list.</EM></P>
<P>2025-09-28</P>
<HR>
<A NAME="254"></A><H4>254.
  
Definitional problems with <I>elaborated-type-specifier</I>s
</H4>
<B>Section: </B>6.5.6&#160; [<A href="https://wg21.link/basic.lookup.elab">basic.lookup.elab</A>]
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Status: </B>CD1
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Submitter: </B>Clark Nelson
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Date: </B>26 Oct 2000<BR>


<P>[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]</P>

<OL>

<LI>
<P>The text in 6.5.6 [<A href="https://wg21.link/basic.lookup.elab#2">basic.lookup.elab</A>] paragraph 2 twice
refers to the possibility that an <I>elaborated-type-specifier</I>
might have the form</P>

<PRE>
        <I>class-key identifier</I> <TT>;</TT>
</PRE>

<P>However, the grammar for <I>elaborated-type-specifier</I> does
not include a semicolon.</P>
</LI>

<LI>
<P>In both 6.5.6 [<A href="https://wg21.link/basic.lookup.elab">basic.lookup.elab</A>] and
9.2.9.5 [<A href="https://wg21.link/dcl.type.elab">dcl.type.elab</A>], the text asserts that an
<I>elaborated-type-specifier</I> that refers to a <I>typedef-name</I>
is ill-formed.  However, it is permissible for the form of
<I>elaborated-type-specifier</I> that begins with <TT>typename</TT>
to refer to a <I>typedef-name</I>.</P>

<P>This problem is the result of adding the <TT>typename</TT> form
to the <I>elaborated-type-name</I> grammar without changing the
verbiage correspondingly.  It could be fixed either by updating the
verbiage or by moving the <TT>typename</TT> syntax into its own
production and referring to both nonterminals when needed.</P>
</LI>

</OL>

<P>(See also <A HREF="180.html">issue 180</A>.  If this
issue is resolved in favor of a separate nonterminal in the
grammar for the <TT>typename</TT> forms, the wording in that
issue's resolution must be changed accordingly.)</P>

<P><B>Notes from 04/01 meeting:</B></P>

<P>The consensus was in favor of moving the <TT>typename</TT>
forms out of the <I>elaborated-type-specifier</I> grammar.</P>

<P><B>Notes from the 4/02 meeting:</B></P>

<P>This will be consolidated with the changes for
<A HREF="245.html">issue 245</A>.</P>

<P><B>Proposed resolution (October 2002):</B></P>

<P>As given in N1376=02-0034.</P>

<BR><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
