From 5044603567987731512 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,d9fe358a73c69991 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.stueberl.de!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: clcppmod-poster@not.a.valid.address ("Gianluca Silvestri") Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Should failure to instantiate a function template abort compilation during overload resolution? Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:20:10 GMT Organization: TIN Lines: 33 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: <1123485075.096196.242990@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123642375.849913.19940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1123690825 11529 158.152.254.254 (10 Aug 2005 16:20:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:20:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Priority: 3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Reply-To: "Gianluca Silvestri" X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id j7AGKAdX014008; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:20:10 +1000 (EST) X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:56:59 MET DST X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:1747 "Howard Hinnant" ha scritto nel messaggio news:hinnant-7A2DC8.09274510082005@syrcnyrdrs-03-ge0.nyroc.rr.com... | In article <1123642375.849913.19940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, | "Wu Yongwei" wrote: | | > My current opinion is that failure to instantiate a template function | > should automatically remove it from the candidates of overload | > resolution. | | Compiler writers are understandably apprehensive of being required to | back out of an arbitrarily complex function which generates an error. | By "back out", I mean the compiler would have to put itself in the exact | same state as it had before it began the function instantiation. I'm | not saying it is impossible to do so, just that this would be a new and | non-trivial requirement on the compiler. | What about keeping in the overload set those function templates that now cause a compile error , mark them in some way and proceed with overload resolution. If one of them win the match then the compiler issue an error, otherwise the best one is chosen. --- Gianluca Silvestri --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]