http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1 |0
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-17 21:37:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't see the point here.
> Since one calls two (which expects a type(t)) x in one (of type class(t)) is
> forced to be a type(t) entity actually. Why not make it a type(t) then ?
Of course this small example does not make very much sense. But in general
there might be situations where it's more useful to pass a CLASS to a TYPE.
