------- Comment #8 from dragan at plusplus dot co dot yu 2009-01-16 21:22 ------- Created an attachment (id=17123) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17123&action=view) another test case
I disagree... here is another test case. Semantically, it is the same as the first one, so there is no reason why "unqualified name" could not include (among others) an unqualified template-id. Either it is a defect in standard, or there is a place that says that template-id can also be qualified or unqualified. This test case eliminates the template-id, and we're back to my original bug report. Hm... why do people try to close or invert this bug report? It is fairly logical and with references to standard, discussion and defect report... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34870
