Is the following example, is it a correct interpretation of the
standard that the instantiation of `N1::V' will inject a class `V'
into namespace `N2'? (The alternative would have been that the
definition of `f' would lead to binding `class V' in `X' to the class
`V' declared in front of the definition of `f'.)

namespace N1 {
    template <class T> class X {
 class V f();
    };

    class V;

    template <class T>
 class V X<T>::f() {...}
}

namepsace N2 {
    N1::X<int> x;
}

--
Gerd Moellmann, Altenbergstr. 6, D-40235 Duesseldorf, Germany
Software Development & Consulting
Internet: mmann@ibm.net / CIS: 100025,3303 / Phone: +49 211 666 881


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]