Tobias,
Thanks for your corrections. It is a bit difficult to speak by means of
"C++-Standard Language" ;)
With Kind Regards,
Ovanes
P.S.
---- OFFTOPIC
Could you take a look at my previous posting regarding singleton
destruction. May be you have overseen it.
---- END
On Jan 24, 2008 3:26 PM, Tobias Schwinger
The wording is a bit ambiguous: A pointer to an /incomplete type/ is in fact OK (using standard terminology), but 'TreeImplBase' is a /template id/ which is not a type at all.
As Ovanes pointed out that construct is illegal, however (except inside a definition of 'TreeImplBase' where it's the /injected class name/).
/Specializing/ a template with template arguments yields a type. Using (whatever) member of this type's interface causes the template to be implicitly (possibly partially) /instantiated/. It's most important to realize that specializing a template does not cause the template to be instantiated automatically.
Note that "template specialization" has a context-dependent meaning, as it can either refer to a type or of a class (template) definition of a variant implementation of the template:
// /primary template/ template< typename T > struct A { ... };
// definition of the (full) specialization A<int> template< > struct A<int> { ... };
// definition of a partial specialization template< typename T > struct A< B<T> > { typedef A self; // /injected class name/ is a type };
// X and Y are specializations (not instantiations)! typedef A< B<int> > X; typedef A< long > Y;
int main() { X x; // instantiation of the 'B<int>'-specialization of A // at this point
// ...
OK, that's about template terminology in five minutes :-).
Regards, Tobias
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users