https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86246
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell <nathan at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This no longer ices. and I am not sure the code is well formed. The code is
explicitly naming a conversion operator 'obj.operator T()', which is not the
same as relying on the conversion mechanism of 'static_cast <T> (obj)'. do we
perform the lookup at template-definition time (using 'T'), or do we defer to
instantiation time and use 'double'.
If you want to specialize 'operator T' for T == double, provide an explicit
specialization:
template<>
MyClass::operator double () const
{
return 2;
}
(this has to be outside the class definition, because thems the rules on
specializations). That compiles without error.
The rules for when naming a conversion operator finds just set using those
names is not the clearest, and I could be wrong. I know we get things like
'operator auto () const {return 1;} wrong -- that remains 'operator auto', it
doesn;t turn into 'operator int'.
