What is the linkage of a namespace scope typedef?

[red floyd]

What is the linkage of a namespace scope typedef? Is it internal or
external?

3.5 is unclear on this.

In other words, is the following program, consisting of translation
units a.cpp and b.cpp, well formed?

a.cpp
// file a.cpp
typedef int MyType;
MyType x = 0;

b.cpp:
// file b.cpp

typedef double MyType;
MyType y = 0.0;

int main() { }

 

[Victor Bazarov]

What is the linkage of a namespace scope typedef? Is it internal or
external?

3.5 is unclear on this.

In other words, is the following program, consisting of translation
units a.cpp and b.cpp, well formed?

a.cpp
// file a.cpp
typedef int MyType;
MyType x = 0;

b.cpp:
// file b.cpp

typedef double MyType;
MyType y = 0.0;

int main() { }

AFAICT, a 'typedef-name' is a pure compile-time thing and it does
not have linkage (similar to macros). The program above is therefore
well-formed.

V

 

[Jonathan Mcdougall]

What is the linkage of a namespace scope typedef? Is it internal or
external?

3.5 is unclear on this.

Well §8 is pretty clear to me: "If a declaration uses a typedef name,
it is the linkage of the type name to which the typedef refers that is
considered."

A typedef is nothing more than syntactic sugar.

In other words, is the following program, consisting of translation
units a.cpp and b.cpp, well formed?

a.cpp
// file a.cpp
typedef int MyType;
MyType x = 0;

b.cpp:
// file b.cpp

typedef double MyType;
MyType y = 0.0;

int main() { }

Yes it is.


Jonathan

 

[red floyd]

Well §8 is pretty clear to me: "If a declaration uses a typedef name,
it is the linkage of the type name to which the typedef refers that is
considered."

A typedef is nothing more than syntactic sugar.

Yeah, I looked at 8 too, and it was just a hard parse for me.

Thanks Victor and Jonathan.

 

[red floyd]

Well §8 is pretty clear to me: "If a declaration uses a typedef name,
it is the linkage of the type name to which the typedef refers that is
considered."

To be honest, I had also considered 3.5/8, but still was uncertain.