Re: [Patch] Document pitfalls of two-stage name lookup, next revision

[Jonathan Lennox <lennox at cs dot columbia dot edu>]

Wolfgang Bangerth writes:
+@example
+  void foo(double);
+
+  struct A @{
+    template <typename T>
+    void f () @{
+      foo (1);        // 1
+      int i = N;      // 2
+      T t;
+      t.bar();        // 3
+      foo (t);        // 4
+    @}
+
+    static const int N;
+  @};
+@end example
+
+Here, the names @code{foo} and @code{N} appear in a context that does
+not depend on the type of @code{T}.  The compiler will thus require that
+they are defined in the context of use in the template, not only before
+the point of instantiation, and will here use @code{::foo(double)} and
+@code{X::N}, respectively.  In particular, it will convert the integer
+value to a @code{double} when passing it to @code{::foo(double)}.

Where is X::N coming from here?  Should this be A::N?

-- 
Jonathan Lennox
lennox at cs dot columbia dot edu