Hi Doug,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
> Author: dgregor
> Date: Mon Nov 23 06:11:45 2009
> New Revision: 89651
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=89651&view=rev
> Log:
> Tolerate extraneous "template<>" headers better, downgrading the
> complaint to a warning and providing a helpful node in the case where
> the "template<>" header is redundant because the corresponding
> template-id refers to an explicit specialization. C++0x might still
> change this behavior, and existing practice is all over the place on
> the number of "template<>" headers actually needed.
Maybe my C++ foo is just laughable, but I read this:
> +template <>
> +struct Foo<int> // expected-note{{header not required for
> explicitly-specialized}}
> +{
and think "what header". That caret makes it clearer but is there a
better wording?
- Daniel
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
