"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:7ji352i1.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes: | | > | You can try it with | > | | > | template<class T> void begin( MyType<T> & t ); | > | | > | and see that it will fail in a similar way. Also try | > | | > | template<class T> void begin( T & t ); | > | | > | to see that it will succeed and deduce T as MyType<int> const. | > | | > | HTH. | > | > hm..you learn something new every day; I wasn't aware of the difference | > between T& and UDT<T>& | | It's not really a difference. | | With | | template <class T> | void f(T&); | | T can be deduced as anything, including const U for some U. | | With | | template <class T> | void f(something<T>&); | | again T can be deduced as anything, including const U for some U. But | there's no leeway to magically insert a const after "something<T>", | where there's no type parameter. right. It's pretty obvious for me now. Thanks for the explanations. -Thorsten