Le 31/03/2012 02:25, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 3/30/2012 12:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/30/2012 12:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:27:43 -0400, Walter Bright
<[email protected]>
wrote:
I would argue that:
3. An extension method for an argument of type template parameter T
will be
looked up only in the instantiation scope.
I don't think you looked at my counter case in detail. Your idea
leads to two
different instantiations of tmpl!Foo having two different
implementations,
depending on which extension methods you include. In fact, in one
place, the
instantiation might succeed, but in another, the instantiation might
fail.
Yes, you're right. I missed that nuance. I don't really know how to
fix it.
Ah, I know how to fix it. Mark such instantiations as "local" ones, so
they are mangled with the module name of where they were instantiated from.
I think this is a terrible idea. Additionally, such a function can be
passed as template parameter using an alias parameter, or the module to
import can be passed.
This is a non issue. I don't see why UFCS would be treated as special in
regard to template instantiation. Template and UFCS are orthogonal concepts.
