erichkeane wrote: > @erichkeane I think this is actually a bug in how I applied [[temp.dep.type] > p5](http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.dep.type#5): > > > A qualified name is dependent if > > > > * it is a _conversion-function-id_ whose _conversion-type-id_ is dependent, > > or > > * its lookup context is dependent and is not the current instantiation, or > > * its lookup context is the current instantiation and it is `operator=`, or > > * its lookup context is the current instantiation and has at least one > > dependent base class, and qualified name lookup for the name finds nothing. > > [[basic.lookup.qual.general] > p3](http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.lookup.qual.general#3) states: > > > [...] Unless otherwise specified, a qualified name undergoes qualified name > > lookup in its lookup context from the point where it appears unless the > > lookup context either is dependent and is not the current instantiation or > > is not a class or class template. [...] > > In the case of `this->operator=`, even though the _name_ is dependent, it > will still be looked up in the template definition context because the lookup > context is the current instantiation (as well as in the template > instantiation context). If a declaration of a template is found, then `<` > will be interpreted as the start of a template argument list. > > ~I'll have a fix ready shortly.~ I have [a > fix](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90999) ready.
Ah! Good catch! I'll review that now. I'm REALLY glad we wont have to do some hackery to make it work. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90152 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
