Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ==================================================
> > template <int dim> struct X {
> > struct I { I(); };
> > };
> >
> > template <int dim> struct Y : X<dim> {
> > typedef typename X<dim>::I I;
> > };
> >
> > template <int dim>
> > Y<dim>::I::I () {} // note: I is nested type in X, not Y!
> >
> > template struct Y<1>;
> > ==================================================
> I forget the chapter-and-verse, but the point is that I is nested in X,
> and so to *define* its constructor (as opposed to refer to it), you have
> to say X<dim>::I::I().
That makes sense, but just to make sure, is this restriction limited
to constructors (and presumably destructors)? That is, is this
similar test case valid C++? Here the code uses Y<dim> to define a
member function foo rather than defining the constructor.
==================================================
template <int dim> struct X {
struct I { I(); void foo(); };
};
template <int dim> struct Y : X<dim> {
typedef typename X<dim>::I I;
};
template <int dim>
void Y<dim>::I::foo () {}
template struct Y<1>;
==================================================
Thanks.
Ian
