Re: [cdt-dev] purpose of "IASTNode point" arguments?

[Nathan Ridge <zeratul976@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Hi Nate,
> Look like the cdt implementation deviates from the standard here. I think you need to look at
> 14.6.4 Dependent name resolution:
> In resolving dependent names, names from the following sources are considered:
> - Declarations that are visible at the point of definition of the template.
> - Declarations from namespaces associated with the types of the function arguments both from the
> instantiation context (14.6.4.1) and from the definition context.
> ...
> Markus.

Here is my proposed solution:

- Wherever an "IASTNode point" is currently passed, pass two IASTNodes
  instead: one for the point of instantiation, and another for the
  point of definition.

- In places where an "IASTNode point" is originated, originate both a 
  point of instantiation and a point of definition. For example, 
  AbstractCPPClassSpecializationScope.getBindings() will continue to pass 
  lookup.getLookupPoint() as the point of instantiation, but it will also 
  pass binding.getDefinition() as the point of definition to 
  ICPPClassSpecialization.specializeMember().

- In places where the "IASTNode point" is used to perform lookups (such as 
  CPPSemantics.findOverloadedOperator()), do regular lookup only starting 
  from the point of definition, and Koenig lookup only starting from the
  point of instantiation.

- For convenience, the two points can be bundled into a class LookupContext.

Does this seem reasonable?

Thanks,
Nate