[class.mem] Explicit specializations within classes #3653
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
How is this editorial? |
|
The intent is known. Quote the wiki:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The intent of CWG 727 was to allow explicit specializations to be declared in any scope that the primary template can be declared in, particularly class scope. Quote [temp.expl.spec] p3:
While this wording was changed, it seems like the grammar for member-declaration was neglected, meaning that declaring an explicit specialization in class scope is not syntactically valid.
(note that explicit-specialization isn't a form of template-declaration, as the template-parameter-list of template-head cannot be empty)