From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-91670-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22255 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2004 20:35:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 22234 invoked by uid 48); 8 Apr 2004 20:35:11 -0000
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20040408203511.22233.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
From: "bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <20031204043712.13294.bkoz@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <20031204043712.13294.bkoz@gcc.gnu.org>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/13294] [3.4 Regression] namespace associations vs. specializations
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00767.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>


------- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-04-08 20:35 -------

Ahh. I see, now. You want

B::f<int>(B::X<int>&)

instead of the current

B::f<int>(A::X<int>&)

Yes, this would probably be the most consistent. So, I guess ugly it is...

-benjamin


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13294