26 May
2012
26 May
'12
7:54 a.m.
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