================
@@ -1414,7 +1414,7 @@ namespace dr96 { // dr96: no
// FIXME: This is ill-formed, because 'f' is not a template-id and does not
----------------
opensdh wrote:
Yes, P1787R6 deprecated that use case; you're supposed to just not use
`template` there. This is consistent with the _recommendation_ in N1528, but
of course we now reject the premise that `template` is _needed_ for a template
template argument. The reasoning, if it helps, is that compilers already have
to deal with ambiguity there:
```cpp
template<auto> void f(); // #1
template<class> void f(int=0); // #2
template<template<class> class> void f(void*=nullptr); // #3
template<class T> void g() {
// in C++20, [temp.res]/6 and [temp.arg.template]/1 contradict each other
here:
f<T::Q>(); // could be #1 or #3
}
template<class T> struct X {
// OK per [temp.local]/1
void h() {f<X>(T());} // could be #2 or #3
void i() {T::template R<X>();} // could be anything
}
```
Accordingly, [CWG1478](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1478.html)'s
question was answered in the negative, and `template` (is to be) restricted to
the case where it influences the interpretation of a `<`.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80801
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
