Redefining nested class on class specialization.

[Belebele]

The following code fails to compile. My intention is to provide
different definitions for a nested class for a class template partial
specialization. Here it is:
template <typename , int class Outer {
public:
class Inner;
};

template <int iclass Outer<int, i>::Inner {};

template <int iclass Outer<double, i>::Inner {};

Do you have any idea why?

Thanks.

[Victor Bazarov]

Belebele wrote:

The following code fails to compile. My intention is to provide
different definitions for a nested class for a class template partial
specialization. Here it is:
template <typename , int class Outer {
public:
class Inner;
};

template <int iclass Outer<int, i>::Inner {};

template <int iclass Outer<double, i>::Inner {};

Do you have any idea why?

The rule is, "you cannot specialise the member of a class template
without first specialising the template".

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Belebele]

The rule is, "you cannot specialise the member of a class template
without first specialising the template".

Don't quite get it. I am able to specialize a member function without
specializing the entire class template. The code below compiles OK:

template <typename struct F {
void f();
};

template <>
void F<int>::f() {};

template <>
void F<double>::f() {};
I thought I could do the same with an inner class. If not, I would use
some indirection to achieve the effect I want. Redefining the inner
class would have been more direct.

[Victor Bazarov]

Belebele wrote:

>The rule is, "you cannot specialise the member of a class template
without first specialising the template".

Don't quite get it. I am able to specialize a member function without
specializing the entire class template. The code below compiles OK:

template <typename struct F {
void f();
};

template <>
void F<int>::f() {};

template <>
void F<double>::f() {};
I thought I could do the same with an inner class. If not, I would use
some indirection to achieve the effect I want. Redefining the inner
class would have been more direct.

I believe you're confusing full specialisation with partial. A full
specialisation is *not* a template. A partial specialisation is still
a template. Try specialising your F::f for, say, all pointers.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Belebele]

I believe you're confusing full specialisation with partial. A full

specialisation is *not* a template. A partial specialisation is still
a template. Try specialising your F::f for, say, all pointers.

Now I get it. I was mixing them up. Thanks.