template bug (all versions)

[Martin v. Loewis]

> I think you're right.  I used to believe writing `template' after a
> template-independent qualifier was ill-formed, but I can't find any
> wording in the Standard to support this claim.  I must have misread
> this section in the past, or I just confused this with some other
> issue.

Perhaps with Core Issue 30. The proposed resolution says

# Append to 14.2 temp.names paragraph 5: 

# Furthermore, names of member templates shall not be prefixed by the
# keyword template if the postfix-expression or qualified-id does not
# appear in the scope of a template. [Note: just as is the case with
# the typename prefix, the template prefix is allowed in cases where
# it is not strictly necessary; i.e., when the expression on the left
# of the -> or ., or the nested-name-specifier is not dependent on a
# template-parameter. ]

Regards,
Martin