On 12/10/2004 01:58 AM, Larry Evans wrote:
On 12/10/2004 12:32 AM, Peder Holt wrote: [snip]
Well, I guess it is back to square one. At least we tried.
Propose a change in the standard on comp.std.c++ and see what feedback you get.
Peder, it just occurred to me that instead of the proposed change of adding :0: as done in: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.std.c++/messages/ea2f9ccdabee9122,dd7fdb68f434be6d,013f08dccd789c33,fbf4388c37565c90,f406ed639436ca30?thread_id=ffee35abd2c61850&mode=thread&noheader=1#doc_f406ed639436ca30 I'm supposing that if A<T>::B, which current means T is in a non-deduced context, were changed to mean A<T>:0:B as in the above proposal, then everything would work, AFAICT. IOW, no change is needed in the syntax, only change is needed in the meaning of non-deduced contexts. Instead of non-deduced context, rename to nested context. In other words: A<T>::B would mean B is nested in the "immediate" A<T> class and not in any superclass of A<T>. This would avoid the problem cited in: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=uvflpetzg.fsf%40boost-consulting.com Does this seem like it would work?