"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes: | "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote | > David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes: | > | > | > What is bizarre and inconsistent about it and is not with the other | > | > alternatives you care to name? | > | | > | As I expected my example below to demonstrate, I think it's | > | inconsistent with the way names from non-dependent base classes are | > | dealt with when masked by function parameter names. | > | > But function parameters are not template parameters vice versa. And | > you should not expect them to behave the same without providing | > technical reasons why such expectations may take place. | | Strikes me that one of C++ s problems is that the namespace system (which | itself partly resulted from confusion over C struct space) does not really | formally address the fact that there are many different kinds of 'space', as | examples(simplifying) object-space, type-space and template-space. I'm sorry, I cannot undersand what you mean here. If you meant that the C "struct stat hack" should have been generalized to template, then I disagree. As a programmer, I find that thing much much more confusing that the issue at hand. -- Gaby