Re: [C++] Unreviewed patches

[Kriang Lerdsuwanakij <lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net>]

Jason Merrill wrote:
> 
> >  PR3391
> >   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-09/msg00898.html
> 
> OK.  Would it make sense to do this for TYPENAME_TYPEs as well?

We can define a class like
  template <class T> class C : public T::N { };
According to the standard, "T::N" should not be prefixed by
"typename" here.  But a TYPENAME_TYPE is created for the base
class (in uniform with other typename cases).  So TYPE_BINFO
of TYPENAME_TYPE may also be used.

> >  Template parm dependent template template arg
> >   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-09/msg00664.html
> 
> This construct can appear outside of template args; consider
> 
>   template <class T> struct A {
>     T::template N<int> n;
>   };
> 
>   struct B {
>     template <class T> struct N { };
>   };
> 
>   A<B> a;
> 

The above code should be "typename T::template N<int> n;". 
The current GCC can handle this well.  It builds a 
TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR and wraps it in a TYPENAME_TYPE.  There is a 
difference between the case in this patch and the one in your
example.  The patch is intended to deal with this construct
WITHOUT its template argument.  Like "C<T::template N>".
This can only appear as template argument.

> Also, the construct isn't just an identifier, it names a class template, so
> the name should suggest such.  Perhaps UNBOUND_CLASS_TEMPLATE?

OK I'll adjust its name.  A revised version will be submitted
later.

> >  Name of class template not a valid template template arg
> >   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-07/msg00787.html
> 
> No.  I think this is an unintended consequence of the wording of the
> resolution of issue 176; we just wanted to say that the injected name could
> be used either as a class or as a template, so I would expect this code to
> be valid.  I'll bring it up at the meeting on the 23rd.

OK, I'll wait and see how it turns out before doing anything about
it.

--Kriang