From 6820938209903260321 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,72f81acd9a4d6dd0,start X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,72f81acd9a4d6dd0,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-02-22 09:58:03 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.lang.c++ Path: nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!ceres.fokus.gmd.de!zib-berlin.de!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!fnnews.fnal.gov!unixhub!courant.SLAC.Stanford.EDU!alhy From: alhy@courant.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (J. Scott Berg) Subject: Forward declaration of classes nested in template classes Message-ID: Keywords: nested template forward Sender: news@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:58:03 GMT Lines: 25 Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.std.c++:11608 comp.lang.c++:91484 Consider the following declaration: template class A { class B; }; template class A::B { A a; }; As far as I can tell from the 9/20/94 WP, this is illegal (my compilers seem to agree with me on this, unless I have the syntax wrong). Yet, if A were not a template class, the construct would be legal; i.e., class A { class B; }; class A::B { A a; }; Am I right in thinking that the template version is illegal? If so, is there a reason that the template version is illegal? If not, I would suggest that the ANSI/ISO folks might want to allow such a forward declaration. Thanks -Scott Berg -- J. Scott Berg Real mail: Varian Physics; Stanford CA 94305-4060 email: ALHY@slac.stanford.edu phone: (415) 926-4732 (w) (415) 854-2713 (h)