Another "is this C++" question for the language lawyers

[Evan]

template <class CharT >
struct ctype_byname {
ctype_byname();
};
template < >
ctype_byname<char>::ctype_byname<char>();

This code compiles with GCC 3.4.4, Sun CC 5.8, and MSVC 7.1. It fails
to compile with GCC 4.1.1, Intel CC 9.1, and Comeau's online compiler.

So... who's got it right?

My hunch from the fact that GCC used to accept it and now doesn't, plus
the fact that Comeau rejects it, is that it's probably not legal, but
can anyone verify this?

I've got a copy of the standard, so feel free to cite it if you happen
to look there anyway, but I have no clue where to look really. (I read
through 14.7 but to no avail. I wonder if maybe there's something
relating to this with all the blah-ids in 14.7.2 para 2, but I don't
know the standard well enough to make that determination.)

Thanks,
Evan

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Evan wrote:

template <class CharT >
struct ctype_byname {
ctype_byname();
};
template < >
ctype_byname<char>::ctype_byname<char>();

This code compiles with GCC 3.4.4, Sun CC 5.8, and MSVC 7.1. It fails
to compile with GCC 4.1.1, Intel CC 9.1, and Comeau's online compiler.

So... who's got it right?

My hunch from the fact that GCC used to accept it and now doesn't, plus
the fact that Comeau rejects it, is that it's probably not legal, but
can anyone verify this?

The code is close to legal, but not quite: the constructor that you try to
specialize is not a member template. Thus, you need to lose the second
template parameter:

template <class CharT >
struct ctype_byname {
ctype_byname();
};

template < >
ctype_byname<char>::ctype_byname();

[snip]
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux