[RFA] thinko in find_symbol_in_baseclass

[Keith Seitz]

On 05/27/2013 11:54 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
> I could be missing something of course.

If I added a relatively detailed comment explaining why it was 
necessary, then searching through static symbols was necessary -- at 
least at the time.

I have several more elaborate tests still lying around (mostly tests 
that include templates and multiple-inheritance), and I cannot trigger a 
failure with your patch.

So right now, I am puzzled why I put that in there. Perhaps it was 
necessary at one point. Perhaps I "fixed" the particular case I was 
attempting to address with that block and then failed to recognize that 
it was no longer necessary.

cp_lookup_nested_symbol searches all static blocks before calling 
find_symbol_in_baseclass, so this bit in find_symbol_in_baseclass is 
clearly unnecessary. My bad.

> btw, it's not clear to me what the tail of this comment means:
>     We do not try to
>     guess any imported namespace as even the fully specified
>     namespace search is already not C++ compliant and more
>     assumptions could make it too magic.
> IWBN to clarify this.
>

I didn't add that comment, but last time I looked at this, I convinced 
myself that what was being criticized was that searching all static 
symbols at this point is already not strictly correct (according to the 
standard), so we don't attempt to deal with imported namespaces and 
other ("obscure") scenarios here.

> Ok to check in?
>

I would say, "Yes," but IANAM.

Keith