Hi,
On 28/02/2018 16:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote:
in this P2 ICE on invalid we fail to diagnose an ill-formed variable
template partial specialization and the assert at the beginning of
determine_specialization triggers. Indeed, we didn't diagnose the problem
via check_specialization_scope (there are no template <>, thus
begin_specialization isn't involved). Simply adding a specific check to
check_explicit_specialization exactly when we recognize a variable template
partial specialization seems a safe thing to do and passes testing. Not sure
if the test itself is as simple as possible or is better done somewhere
else...
Hmm, this doesn't look like the user intended to write a partial
specialization, but rather that they were trying to define the member
template and wrote the template arguments out by mistake.
I see your point. If I understand correctly, in such cases clang somehow
talks about both possibilities:
error: variable template partial specialization does not specialize any
template argument; to define the primary template, remove the template
argument list
What do you think, should we do something similar? (by the way,
yesterday got a bit confused because in other vaguely related cases
clang also has this kind of two-part error message and we don't. Eg, I
cooked up:
template <class T>
class Foo
{
template <class U>
class Bar;
};
template<class T>
template<class U>
class Foo<T>::Bar<U>;
Thanks,
Paolo.
