Gord, >In the first case, the name "T" is visible in the scope of the definition (i.e. the "typedef bit T") so that is the "T" that will be selected. Clearly that is incorrect. This is the incorrect behavior. Can we say that a scoped method body (such as this) is within the scope of the declaration (for name resolution purposes) ? If not, what about saying that the unchanged code means the templated param, and that, if the bit T is wanted, it needs to have a "::" to say the outer scope? My feeling is that a rule is better than syntax. Take Care, Mike On 6/18/07, Jonathan Bromley <jonathan.bromley@doulos.com> wrote: > > Gord, > > I absolutely concur with the motivation and solution. As long as > you and all the heavy-duty compiler folk are happy that the > solution is bombproof, I'm happy. > -- > Jonathan > > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses anddangerous content by > MailScanner, and isbelieved to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Jun 18 08:06:19 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 18 2007 - 08:06:28 PDT