--- Comment #4 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-03-11 12:26 ---
It looks like gcc is correct.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43315
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 13:12 ---
Yes, I saw your mail to the std reflector. As I said in my reply there, I
don't understand the rules, but GCC seems to be following them correctly.
Closing this bug.
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 10:14 ---
In the latest draft (n3035) [temp.deduct.type] 14.9.2.5 paragraph 22 has an
example of a case where a non-variadic template is more specialized than
variadic templates. I'm not entirely sure if that's relevant though.
--- Comment #3 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-03-10 22:30 ---
I'm not sure about this.
Maybe gcc is right.
Even though it take zero parameter, it's still there.
I don't know.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43315
--- Comment #1 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-03-10 00:08 ---
Umm, I found that non-variadic template is more specialized than the variadic
templates.
I wonder it affects this.
However, in this case, I think there is no type to be specialized.
--
