From -4203747420606791835 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,edc2199a4088735f X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-15 11:21:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Tom Puverle" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Explicit member template specialization Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:20:08 GMT Organization: University of Cambridge, England Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: References: <3CE109AC.7371E39D@R-it.it> <%7kE8.1707$Ec.151836@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1021486815 mail2news:16732 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Lines: 41 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:11265 > No, I believe this query is why one can not fully specialize a class > template member function template without fully specializing the class > template first. This isn't the issue of why partial specialization of class > template member functions is not allowed which had been previously brought > up on this NG by me, as much as I would still like to hear the reason(s) > from someone in my original query. Yes that's correct. I am wondering about the reasoning behind not allowing things such as: (Trying the most standard-compatible syntax possible..) template<> template class Outer::Inner {} or template<> template class Outer::Inner {} (and of course the same goes for member template functions...) This just seems like such an arbitrary restriction... template (member) function partial specialization (as mentioned above) feels exactly the same way, btw. Why allow it for template classes and not for template functions? Enlighten me, please! Thanks, Tom --- [ 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 ]