On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 21:33:06 =?UTF-8?B?Ikx1w61z?=.Marques <[email protected]>@puremagic.com wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 August 2013 at 11:09:01 UTC, bearophile wrote: > > Do you have some use cases for this? > > No, not at the moment. I was just wondering if there was a reason > for what seemed an arbitrary difference between template > parameters and normal parameters.
Not that I'm aware of. I'd file a bug (or at least an enhancement request) on it on the grounds we should be consistent unless there's a good reason not to be, and I'm not aware of any reason for this particular inconsistency (though honestly, I wouldn't have expected it to work in either case - if it can, great, but I would have just assumed that it wouldn't). - Jonathan M Davis
