> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > | C++ allows the word 'typename' after a 'using' directive. _The C++ Pro > gramming Language_ (third edition) [Stroustrup], section A.7 (Grammar/Declara > tions) defines the using directive: > | using-declaration: > | "using" "typename"(opt) "::"(opt) nested-name-specifier > | unqualified-id ";" > > The C++ grammar is not context-free, you cannot deduce construct > validity just from pure grammar productions.
OK, fine. The question remains: is this a legal construct, or not? Seth
