Le 26/05/2012 01:21, David C. Rankin a écrit :
OK,
I see how that happened, but I still don't think I could have discerned whether the 'it' at 496 went with the 'it' from 475 or the 'it' from 485 since it is within the code-block for TQMap<TQGuardedPtr<KMFolder>, bool>::Iterator it, but it is _not_ expressly in the code-block for TQMap<TQGuardedPtr<KMFolder>, int>::Iterator unread_it
How would you know which 'it' needed to go to 'unread_it' or 'it' in this case? When we went over it before, the way was to start with the inner-most 'it' and work out from there to separate code-blocks. That didn't work in this case. Any other tricks?
Hello, in the original code, the "it" is first declared in a "for" statement (line 475), then redeclared differently inside this "for" loop. (line 485). Inside that loop, any "it" usage BEFORE the redeclaration (line 476 to 484) refer the first declaration, and any "it" AFTER the redeclaration (line 486 to end of loop) refer to the new declaration. The redeclaration implies that the original variable is unreferenced, so it cannot be used anymore.
So, when you rename the variable of a conflicting redeclaration (this is mandatory for GCC 4.7), you must update all references to this variable that come AFTER the redeclaration too.
Francois