From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-17 12:09:55
From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> >> "Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> > The problem here is that there is no way for argument deduction
> >> > to succeed with an anonymous type because an anonymous type
> >> > cannot be bound to a template argument--meaning that argument
> >> > deduction must fail before it even tries.
> >> Maybe I am misunderstanding what Paul is saying here, but it seems to
> >> me if it argument deduction was currently supposed to fail when passed
> >> a type without linkage,
> >> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#488
> >> wouldn't exist.
> > Doesn't the issue suggest that what is currently supposed to
> > happen is vague, so one can only determine empirically what a
> > given compiler will do?
> Exactly my point. AFAICT, there is no particular response prescribed
> by the standard in this case.
I understand now. Paul was saying argument deduction must fail
and you were saying that it isn't clear that failed deduction is
the mandated behavior.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk