From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-416822-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10219 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2013 17:00:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 9865 invoked by uid 48); 4 Mar 2013 16:58:46 -0000
From: "mmehlich at semanticdesigns dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/56506] variadic class template specialization not selected as best match
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:00:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mmehlich at semanticdesigns dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-56506-4-6QGGpuuz86@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56506-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56506-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
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
X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56506

--- Comment #3 from Michael Mehlich <mmehlich at semanticdesigns dot com> 2013-03-04 16:58:45 UTC ---
Considering that based on 14.5.3(5) a template member declaration
  X<Y<Z<T...>,T>...>::type x;
with T bound to int,bool,char must expand to
  X<Y<Z<int,bool,char>,int>, 
  Y<Z<int,bool,char>,bool>, 
  Y<Z<int,bool,char>,char>>::type x;
I'd consider it rather counter-intuitive if I cannot get a match as described
in my original message.

Does the standard actually specify how the matching process works in detail
in the presence of variadic templates?  Going through the template section,
I haven't found anything definite that would put light onto this issue
(though I might have missed it).

I can't really understand your "because it is not followed by ...";
after all, in X<Y<Z<T...>, U>...> the parameter pack U is also not immediately
followed by a ..., so why is that case ok but my original one isn't?

It is pretty easy to implement a matcher that successfully matches the case
in the original message, so I don't think the standard has any excuse not to
consider this a successful match, either.  
Notwithstanding that, the standards committee might have decided otherwise.
If so, where does it say so in the standard, resp. how can I conclude this
from what I can find in there?

--
  Michael