vgvassilev wrote: @diseraluca, thanks for the thorough description. The point of these routines is to produce code that compiles. I am not sure if we change `Foo<int>::Bar` with `Foo<T>::Bar` it will compile.
> Due to the way the current codebase is set up, the chosen specialization is > `QFuture<void>` so that, for example, `QFuture::constBegin()` would be shown > to the user as returning a `QFuture<void>::const_iterator`. Nonetheless, > `QFuture<void>` is the only specialization that cannot have a > `const_iterator` and, as a consequence, doesn't have a `constBegin` method in > the first place. I suspect that `QFuture<void>` is an explicit specialization. The intent of the code was to pick up an implicit specialization which follows much more closely the template pattern. Would selecting the first non-explicit instantiation fix your usecase? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67566 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
