Reputation: 20746
The following code compiles in both gcc 4.7.2 and MSVC-11.0:
template <typename T>
void foo(T bar) {}
template <typename T, typename... Args>
void foo(T bar, Args... args) {}
int main()
{
foo(0); // OK
}
Why? I think that it's must be ambiguous call:
ISO/IEC 14882:2011
14.5.6.2 Partial ordering of function templates [temp.func.order]
5 ...
[ Example:
template<class T, class... U> void f(T, U...); // #1
template<class T > void f(T); // #2
template<class T, class... U> void g(T*, U...); // #3
template<class T > void g(T); // #4
void h(int i) {
f(&i); // error: ambiguous
g(&i); // OK: calls #3
}
—end example ]
Upvotes: 11
Views: 753
Reputation: 385144
Yep, you're right! That's a compiler "feature", and quite possibly a deliberate one since the committee has suggested, in issue #1395, that this case should be accepted and, as such, it seems likely that in future standards (or even a TR) it will be.
Upvotes: 3
Reputation: 131789
This is considered a defect in the current standard. Even the standard itself relies on non-variadic templates to be partially ordered before variadic ones in the specification of std::common_type
:
§20.9.7.6 [meta.trans.other] p3
The nested typedef
common_type::type
shall be defined as follows:
template <class ...T> struct common_type;
template <class T>
struct common_type<T> {
typedef T type;
};
template <class T, class U>
struct common_type<T, U> {
typedef decltype(true ? declval<T>() : declval<U>()) type;
};
template <class T, class U, class... V>
struct common_type<T, U, V...> {
typedef typename common_type<typename common_type<T, U>::type, V...>::type type;
};
Specifically common_type<T, U>
vs common_type<T, U, V...>
.
Upvotes: 13