From: Ovanes Markarian (om_boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-24 09:52:28
Tobias,
Thanks for your corrections. It is a bit difficult to speak by means of
"C++-Standard Language" ;)
With Kind Regards,
Ovanes
P.S.
---- OFFTOPIC
Could you take a look at my previous posting regarding singleton
destruction. May be you have overseen it.
---- END
On Jan 24, 2008 3:26 PM, Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> The wording is a bit ambiguous: A pointer to an /incomplete type/ is in
> fact OK (using standard terminology), but 'TreeImplBase' is a /template
> id/ which is not a type at all.
>
> As Ovanes pointed out that construct is illegal, however (except inside
> a definition of 'TreeImplBase' where it's the /injected class name/).
>
> /Specializing/ a template with template arguments yields a type. Using
> (whatever) member of this type's interface causes the template to be
> implicitly (possibly partially) /instantiated/. It's most important to
> realize that specializing a template does not cause the template to be
> instantiated automatically.
>
> Note that "template specialization" has a context-dependent meaning, as
> it can either refer to a type or of a class (template) definition of a
> variant implementation of the template:
>
> // /primary template/
> template< typename T > struct A { ... };
>
> // definition of the (full) specialization A<int>
> template< > struct A<int> { ... };
>
> // definition of a partial specialization
> template< typename T > struct A< B<T> >
> {
> typedef A self; // /injected class name/ is a type
> };
>
> // X and Y are specializations (not instantiations)!
> typedef A< B<int> > X;
> typedef A< long > Y;
>
> int main()
> {
> X x; // instantiation of the 'B<int>'-specialization of A
> // at this point
>
> // ...
>
> OK, that's about template terminology in five minutes :-).
>
>
> Regards,
> Tobias
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>