🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9524503.22797@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> you write:
>gcato@st6000.sct.edu (Vaughn Cato) wrote:
>>template <class T = int> class A;
>>
>>void f() {
>>  A<> *p1; // The legal way to default the argument
>>  A *p2;   // Syntax error
>>}
>
>	template <int i = 42> struct A { A(int = 0) {} };
>	foo(*new A<0>(0));
>		// should that be parsed as `foo((*new A) < 0) > 0)'??

I see how use with the new operator could cause an ambiguity.  If the form
without <> was treated as as a secondary syntax I don't believe it would be
a problem though:

template <int i = 42> class A;
class B;

  new A<0>(0);  /* Interpreted as usual. */
  new A(0);     /* Interpreted as new A<0>(0) since it would be a syntax
                   error otherwise */ 
  new B<0>(0);  /* Interpreted as ((new B)<0)>0 as usual */
  new B(0);     /* Interpreted as usual. */

Of course, this is messy.  It is basically the same as how the declaration/
constructor call ambiguity is resolved.

  Until Later,
  Vaughn Cato (gcato@st6000.sct.edu)
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]