From -2075671634744563395 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,c4ab463952a444d1 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gid7894ca11fe,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:30:14 -0500 Return-Path: To: (Usenet) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?= Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: SFINAE anomaly Organization: http://groups.google.com Sender: cppmods@cs.rpi.edu Approved: james.dennett@gmail.com Message-ID: References: <94198f77-7de0-4009-bc94-d41a608bb7ee@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Original-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:34:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Submission-Address: std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:23:42 CST Lines: 44 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-UO6+9Mw5x7Iv6L9iHQ0J8worYUAcFfpqXUZGHZWlhoFkq+flX5t7xicl9DADgsbsdYXwfdR9iKROiWL!jOfoh8gaNpX5mQrB6ug/BSEQGr/sAgmveTfNl4DHQAfa3QPDj5YYc9EKPAHbEF/z2zuu1TAWgVxW!ze1ylhCBulXRWOHpXpd1kofFxh0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2788 On 20 Jul., 01:21, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?= wrote: > On 19 Jul., 20:19, Edward Diener wrote: > > > On 7/18/2010 5:27 PM, Daniel Kr=FCgler wrote: > > > > I think this is clearly a compiler defect. > > > Is it a compiler defect under the C++03 compiler using SFINAE, or are > > you saying it is a compiler defect under the C++0x extended SFINAE ? If > > it is a compiler defect only under the C++0x extended SFINAE then it is > > quite possible that the three versions of compilers I have tested this > > under do not yet implement the C++0x extended SFINAE. > > I ignored C++03 in my discussion because you already mentioned > "extended SFINAE" rules, which are not available within C++03. > Looking at the C++03 rules I would say that the wording is not > really clear here. A weak interpretation of 14.8.2/2 would include > your example, a strong interpretation would not. The part of the > wording which can be interpreted to apply is bullet 2: > > =97 The specified template arguments must match the template > parameters in kind (i.e., type, nontype, template), and there must > not be more arguments than there are parameters; otherwise type > deduction fails. Sorry, this was a wrong reference: Above normative wording describes the kind and number of the *function* template, not of templates that might occur as function parameters or return type. Apart from this part, the remaining argumentation should still be correct. Sorry for any confusion & Greetings from Bremen, Daniel Kr�gler -- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]