Template<> confusion

[SoilMan]

Consider the following:

class xyz
{
public:
template <typename T>
void foo(T x)
{
cout << "foo<T> " << x << endl;
}

template <> // remove this line or not?
void foo(int x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}
};

This code compiles on MS VS C++ 2003 and Intel C++ 9 but not on Dev-C++
4.9.9.2. However, if I comment out the line "template<> ", it compiles
fine on all 3 compilers.

Can someone please explain what is the standard C++ on this matter?
Thank you.

Chris

[Sumit Rajan]

"SoilMan" <cb****@yahoo.c om> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

Consider the following:

class xyz
{
public:
template <typename T>
void foo(T x)
{
cout << "foo<T> " << x << endl;
}

Move the following out of this scope: template <> // remove this line or not?
void foo(int x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}
};

and place it here:

template <>
void xyz::foo(int x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}

Regards,
Sumit.
--
Sumit Rajan <su****@msdc.hc ltech.com>

[dc]

There is no need to place template <> when u defining a specific
implementation.

[Maxim Yegorushkin]

SoilMan wrote:

Consider the following:

class xyz
{
public:
template <typename T>
void foo(T x)
{
cout << "foo<T> " << x << endl;
}

template <> // remove this line or not?
void foo(int x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}
};

This code compiles on MS VS C++ 2003 and Intel C++ 9 but not on Dev-C++
4.9.9.2. However, if I comment out the line "template<> ", it compiles
fine on all 3 compilers.

Can someone please explain what is the standard C++ on this matter?

A specialization of member template can only be declared out of the
class definition.

Anyway, you don't need specialization here, function overloading would
suffice.

[Rolf Magnus]

dc wrote:

There is no need to place template <> when u defining a specific
implementation.

It depends on what you want. If you don't place the template<>, you get an
overload instead of a specialization.

[red floyd]

Sumit Rajan wrote:

"SoilMan" <cb****@yahoo.c om> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

Consider the following:

class xyz
{
public:
template <typename T>
void foo(T x)
{
cout << "foo<T> " << x << endl;
}

Move the following out of this scope:

template <> // remove this line or not?
void foo(int x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}
};

and place it here:

template <>
void xyz::foo(int x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}

Just out of curiosity, shouldn't it be:

template<>
void xyz::foo<int>(i nt x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}

[Sumit Rajan]

"red floyd" <no*****@here.d ude> wrote in message
news:Rd******** **********@news svr11.news.prod igy.com...

Sumit Rajan wrote:

Move the following out of this scope:

template <> // remove this line or not?
void foo(int x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}
};

and place it here:

template <>
void xyz::foo(int x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}

Just out of curiosity, shouldn't it be:

template<>
void xyz::foo<int>(i nt x)
{
cout << "foo<int> " << x << endl;
}

IIRC, it is not necessary.

Regards,
Sumit.
--
Sumit Rajan <su****@msdc.hc ltech.com>

[dc]

Can someone explain when u need overloaded version / specialization of
a template. And
how does it differs...

[Marcelo Pinto]

Rolf Magnus escreveu:

dc wrote:

There is no need to place template <> when u defining a specific
implementation.

It depends on what you want. If you don't place the template<>, you get an
overload instead of a specialization.

IIRC, in either case you get an overload, for there is no such thing as
function template specialization.

Please advise me if I got it wrong.

TIA,

Marcelo Pinto.

[dc]

Ya , for function it doesnot matter. If both implemented , overload
will be preferred over
specialization.
But for class template, only specialization is the solution.