Reputation: 3934
To a question I asked here, I got the suggestion to use a general pattern like this to solve my problem:
template <class... T>
class C;
template <>
class C<>
{
public:
void f() {}
};
template <class T, class... Args>
class C<T, Args...> : public C<Args...>
{
public:
using C<Args...>::f;
void f(const T& t) { /*stuff*/ }
};
Now, I don't fully understand why this pattern has to be like this, so I tried to adapt it by a hypothesis I had about how this works. In the adaption I wanted to end the recursion in a base case with 1 and not 0 template arguments, so I changed the snippet as follows:
template <class V, class... >
class C;
template <class V>
class C
{
public:
void f() {}
};
template <class V, class T, class... Args>
class C<V, T, Args...> : public C<V, Args...>
{
public:
using C<Args...>::f;
void f(const T& t) { /*stuff*/ }
};
Here V
is supposed to keep getting passed on until Args...
is empty, then
template <class V>
class C
{
public:
void f() {}
};
is supposed to be chosen. However this throws an error:
error: too few template parameters in template redeclaration
template <class V>
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
note: previous template declaration is here
template <class V, class... >
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So my hypothesis was wrong. How does this actually work and what would be the correct changes for my adaption need to be?
Upvotes: 1
Views: 142
Reputation: 7788
Two errors here: First, incorrect specialization:
template <class V>
class C
{
//...
};
Should be:
template <class V>
class C<V>
{
//...
};
Second, incorrect using
declaration:
using C<Args...>::f;
Should be:
using C<V, Args...>::f;
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 477010
You forgot the spell the specialization correctly:
template <class V>
class C<V>
// ^^^^ you missed this
Upvotes: 1