Title
typename and elaborated types
Status
cd1
Section
13.8 [temp.res]
Submitter
Mike Miller

Created on 1999-12-21.00:00:00 last changed 161 months ago

Messages

Date: 2002-04-15.00:00:00

[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]

Date: 2001-04-15.00:00:00

Proposed resolution (04/01):

In 13.8 [temp.res] paragraph 5, change

The keyword typename is not permitted in a base-specifier or in a mem-initializer; in these contexts a qualified-name that depends on a template-parameter (13.8.3 [temp.dep]) is implicitly assumed to be a type name.

to

A qualified name used as the name in a mem-initializer-id, a base-specifier, or an elaborated-type-specifier (in the class-key and enum forms) is implicitly assumed to name a type, without the use of the typename keyword. [Note: the typename keyword is not permitted by the syntax of these constructs.]

(The expected resolution for issue 254 will remove the typename forms from the grammar for elaborated-type-specifier. If that resolution is adopted, the parenthetical phrase "(in the class-key and enum forms)" in the preceding wording should be removed because those will be the only forms of elaborated-type-specifier.)

This has been consolidated with the edits for some other issues. See N1376=02-0034.

Date: 2004-09-10.00:00:00

Mike Miller: A question about typename came up in the discussion of issue 68 that is somewhat relevant to the idea of omitting typename in contexts where it is clear that a type is required: consider something like

        template <class T>
        class X {
            friend class T::nested;
        };
Is typename required here? If so, where would it go? (The grammar doesn't seem to allow it anywhere in an elaborated-type-specifier that has a class-key.)

Bill Gibbons: The class applies to the last identifier in the qualified name, since all the previous names must be classes or namespaces. Since the name is specified to be a class it does not need typename. [However,] it looks like 13.8 [temp.res] paragraph 3 requires typename and the following paragraphs do not exempt this case. This is not what we agreed on.

History
Date User Action Args
2008-10-05 00:00:00adminsetstatus: wp -> cd1
2003-04-25 00:00:00adminsetstatus: dr -> wp
2002-05-10 00:00:00adminsetmessages: + msg692
2002-05-10 00:00:00adminsetstatus: ready -> dr
2001-11-09 00:00:00adminsetstatus: review -> ready
2001-05-20 00:00:00adminsetstatus: ready -> review
2000-11-18 00:00:00adminsetmessages: + msg406
2000-11-18 00:00:00adminsetstatus: drafting -> ready
2000-05-21 00:00:00adminsetstatus: open -> drafting
1999-12-21 00:00:00admincreate