On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am i missing something obvious?
> well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says.
I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined
that way when non specialized version don't have to, ie that is legit:
namespace dummy {
struct foo {
template <int i> void f();
};
}
template<int i> void dummy::foo::f() { }But if that's the law... Thanks for clue.
