shepherd@debussy.sbi.com (Marc Shepherd) writes:

>         template<class T> void f();
>         template<int I> void f();
>         void g() {
>               f<int()>(); // ``int()'' is a type-id; call the first f()
>         }
>
>If I read the grammar correctly, the type-id ``int()'' corresponds
>(in English) to "function taking no arguments, returning int".

Yes, that looks right to me.

>If so, the template instantiation would (it seems) be ill-formed on
>semantic grounds.
>
>Am I correct?

I don't think so.
Ill-formed on which semantic grounds?  It looks fine to me.

--
Fergus Henderson                       | I'll forgive even GNU emacs as
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au                        | long as gcc is available ;-)
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh            |             - Linus Torvalds

The template clause of the draft WP includes the
following statement and accompanying example:

   In a template-argument, an ambiguity between a type-id
   and an expression is resolved to a type-id.  [Example:

         template<class T> void f();
         template<int I> void f();

         void g()
         {
               f<int()>(); // ``int()'' is a type-id; call the first f()
         }

   --end example]

If I read the grammar correctly, the type-id ``int()'' corresponds
(in English) to "function taking no arguments, returning int".  If
so, the template instantiation would (it seems) be ill-formed on
semantic grounds.

Am I correct?


---
Marc Shepherd
Salomon Brothers Inc
shepherd@schubert.sbi.com The opinions I express are no one's but mine!

In article <3pi79i$ihm@offas_dike.sbil.co.uk> shepherd@debussy.sbi.com writes:
>The template clause of the draft WP includes the
>following statement and accompanying example:
>
>   In a template-argument, an ambiguity between a type-id
>   and an expression is resolved to a type-id.  [Example:
>
>         template<class T> void f();
>         template<int I> void f();
>
>         void g()
>         {
>               f<int()>(); // ``int()'' is a type-id; call the first f()
>         }
>
>   --end example]
>
>If I read the grammar correctly, the type-id ``int()'' corresponds
>(in English) to "function taking no arguments, returning int".  If
>so, the template instantiation would (it seems) be ill-formed on
>semantic grounds.
>
>Am I correct?
>

You are right about what the type of T would be.  Such a type could,
however, be used within f() in valid ways (e.g., creating a pointer of
that type).

John Spicer
Edison Design Group