🚀 go-pugleaf

|> 
|> Assuming X, Y and Z are class names, how should
|> 
|> 	X::Y::Z::*foo;
|> 
|> be interpreted?
|> 
|> 1. foo is a pointer to member of class ::Y::Z of type X.
|>    ('X' is a decl-specifier and '::Y::Z::*foo' is a declarator)
|> 
|> 2. foo is a pointer to member of class ::Z of type X::Y.
|>    ('X::Y' is a decl-specifier and '::Z::*foo' is a declarator)
|> 
|> 3. X::Y::Z is a decl-specifier and ::*mptr is an error.
|> 

The is a simpler potential ambiguity lurking in the use of "::" in declarations.

	X::f() { ... } 

Is the a declaration of "X::f" (implicitly returning int), or of "::f"
(returning X).  To avoid this ambiguity there is a rule that a declarator
may not begin with "::".  Actually there isn't a rule per se. The grammar
doesn't contain any rules that derive a declarator starting with "::".
And that omission is deliberate.

So answer to the question is that non of the above interpretations
is possible.  X::Y::Z::*foo, is a declartor and since no explicit
typespec is present int is assumed.  This means that you declaring
"foo" as a pointer to int member of X::Y::Z.  

    -- Jerry Schwarz.