Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (Gabriel.Dos-Reis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-19 13:09:48

Valentin Bonnard <Bonnard.V_at_[hidden]> writes:

| Dave Abrahams wrote:
| > Valentin wrote:
| > >> I'm not absolutely sure what the policy ought to be for generic code, though
| > >> I lean toward the high-labor, low-intrusiveness approach (option 2).
| > >
| > > Since there is no such thing a function partial specialization,
| > > option 2 is unusable for any kind of generic code.
| >
| > Of course. I must have been temporarily insane. Why there is no function
| > partial specialization is a mystery to me, but that's beside the point.
| Why explicit specialisation and partial specialisation are
| distinct concepts, treated differently, described in different
| sections, with slightly different rules, applying to different
| things, is beyond me.

A partially specialized template is still a template (e.g. it needs to
be instanticated) whereas an explicit specialization is just a kind of
"normal" definition. For example an explicitly specialized template
doesn't involve a two-phase name lookup, nor template argument
deduction... There are definitely distinct notions.

-- Gaby

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at