rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22587#551647, @mgehre wrote:
> I'm sorry if this sounds dumb, but is there a way for me to follow that > particular discussion? Only if you have access to the C++ committee's internal reflectors. Sadly this is not on the issues list yet either (it only lists issues reported up to the end of June 2016, and this was filed in July). The suggestion from the end of the discussion thread was that the right rule for recognising an injected-class-name is that the template argument must be equivalent to the template parameter for the primary template / template argument for a partial specialization, using the rules in [temp.over.link] to determine equivalence. (Thus not even parentheses surrounding a non-type template argument are permitted.) There seems to be consensus that dr224 was a mistake. https://reviews.llvm.org/D22587 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
