From: Gavin Collings (gcollings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-21 08:03:59
"greg colvin" <gcolvi-_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The library group was rather surprised when the core group
> informed us that the language would not generate default
> versions from member template versions.
So was I. I suppose it might help sort out ambiguity in the case where
multiple member template constructors could potentially generate a copy
constructor, but that doesn't seem insurmountable - just use the normal
template function selection rules and take the most specialized. All I
could find in D+E and C++ PL was the comment "Curiously enough, a
template constructor is never used to generate a copy constructor".
What was the rationale behind this?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk