------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-29 09:26 ------- (In reply to comment #22) > (In reply to comment #21) > > *** Bug 18688 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** > > Is it really a dupe? yes.
> The bug I raised only involved a templated argument, the > class with the member function is not templated. yes > Besides which, if its invalid > as a member function, why is it not invalid stand-alone? because non-member's default args can be parsed immediately, member's default args cannot be. > And why should typedef's get around it? because those do not have commas in them read DR325 for gory details -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
