On 6/25/21 1:14 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/25/21 11:03 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here, when determining whether the partial specialization matches the
specialization has_set_attr_method, we do so from the scope of
where the template-id appears rather
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 6/25/21 11:03 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Here, when determining whether the partial specialization matches the
> > specialization has_set_attr_method, we do so from the scope of
> > where the template-id appears rather than from the scope of the
> >
On 6/25/21 11:03 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here, when determining whether the partial specialization matches the
specialization has_set_attr_method, we do so from the scope of
where the template-id appears rather than from the scope of the
specialization, and this causes us to select the partial s
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Here, when determining whether the partial specialization matches the
> specialization has_set_attr_method, we do so from the scope of
Er, this should say has_type_method.
> where the template-id appears rather than from the scope of the
> specializati
Here, when determining whether the partial specialization matches the
specialization has_set_attr_method, we do so from the scope of
where the template-id appears rather than from the scope of the
specialization, and this causes us to select the partial specialization
(since Child::type is accessib
