Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes: | {- We are still off-topic for boost but at least we don't bother Brian | and all the people who are interested in the FC++ review -} | | On 16 Feb 2004 16:39:23 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis | <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: | | >"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> writes: | > | >| This however runs contrary to the principle that I, as a user, should be | >| able to explicitly disambiguate; since I can write a qualified name for a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | >| class member but not for a template parameter, it naturally follows that | >| template parameters should hide class members and not vice versa. | > | >That does not follow. Your raisoning is based on the assumption that | >there is an ambiguity, but there is none. | | Come on, he didn't mean it's ambiguous. One "explicitly disambiguates" when there is an ambiguity. | Just that with one rule the user can choose what the name should | refer to, with the other one he/she cannot. I understand the reasoning of letting the user says what the name should refer to. Which makes me inclined to make the construct ill-formed: That is not different from the rule that says you cannot reclare a template-parameter in its scope. | Genny. | | | Genny. -- Gaby