Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
+ /* This can happen for template parms of a template template
+parameter, e.g:
+
+templatetemplateclass T, class U class TT struct S;
+
+Consider the level of the parms of TT; T and U both have
+level 2; TT has
On 03/28/2012 11:02 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
For:
templateclass T, templateclass U, T class TT struct S;
the parms of TT do have a level 1 that contains the parm T. It seems to
me that we need T and U to have different levels here, so both cannot
have level 1.
Why do we need them to
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 03/28/2012 11:02 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
For:
templateclass T, templateclass U, T class TT struct S;
the parms of TT do have a level 1 that contains the parm T. It seems to
me that we need T and U to have different levels here, so both
On 03/28/2012 12:08 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
On 03/28/2012 11:02 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
templateclass T, templateclass U, T class TT struct S;
Then, if U and T have the same level, how do we represent the full set
of template parms up to U for instance? I mean if that TREE_LIST of
On 03/08/2012 08:21 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
So I needed to say somehow that the P in the pack expansion
(in the pattern) is actually a Pr in spirit.
Ah, I see.
+/*we will fixup the siblings for
Space and capital W.
+get_root_index_same_level (tree
On 03/08/2012 08:21 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
[Handle fix-up for level-reduced a template parameter pack]
In the partial instantiation of the member template Aint::f, the
level of the parameter pack Us is NOT reduced, even if it ought to be
considered as morally reduced.
The level of the
