Created on 2012-09-01.00:00:00 last changed 139 months ago
Rationale (October, 2012):
CWG felt that having a simple rule (advising use of typename with all dependent nested types wherever syntactically permitted) was more important than reducing the number of contexts in which the requirement applied.
Given that the type-id in an alias-declaration is unambiguously a type, is there a reason to require the typename keyword for dependent types appearing there? In other contexts where a dependent name can only be a type (e.g., in a base-specifier), the keyword can/must be omitted.
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-11-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg4182 |
| 2012-11-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> nad |
| 2012-09-01 00:00:00 | admin | create | |