Re: [C++ Patch] PR 57466 (DR 1584)

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,

On 08/18/2014 09:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/15/2014 03:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > On 08/15/2014 09:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 08/15/2014 03:16 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > > > +  bool in_function = (TREE_TYPE (tparms)
> > > > +              && DECL_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_P (TREE_TYPE (tparms)));
> > >
> > > Huh?  There's no such thing as a template parameter of function type.
> Oh, I see, you're using that TREE_TYPE of the parameter vec points to 
> the primary template for those template parms.
>
> But I don't see any rationale in the standard for distinguishing 
> between deduction for a function template vs. another kind of template 
> for the DR 1584 change.
I understand... It would be nice to also have a testcase for the class 
template counterpart of the snippet in DR 1584, where it makes a real 
difference. Then figuring out a complete patch not causing regressions 
will be easier.

Paolo.