🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4gi7h0$l0@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:

>  In article AA11584@garlic.spices, wikman@research.nokia.com (Johan Wikman)
>  writes:
>
>  >I'd like to be able to have a class and a template with the same name
>  >in the same scope. 
>
>	   class A { ... };
>
>	   template <class T>
>	   class A {
>		   void foo() { .... A ... }
>	   };
>
>   In A<T>::foo, I use the identifier "A". Does that refer to the template
>   or to the class? In order not to break all existing code, it must
>   refer to the template. 

Interesting, I always thought you had to use A<T>. Now that I tried
it, all compilers I have access to (HP, gcc and MS VC++) accepted both
A and A<T>. What does the standard say? Are both versions allowed?
 
>   Perhaps you can think of a special syntax that won't change the meaning
>   of existing code, or we could say that you can't refer to class A anywhere
>   in the scope of template A. 

No, I won't even try. But I definitely find using A<T> within the
definition of a template's function more intuitive than just using
A. Making A<T> a requirement certainly wouldn't break my code;-). 

--
johan.wikman@research.nokia.com


[ To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader.
		      If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  FAQ:    http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
  Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]