Reputation: 13988
Consider an example:
#include <type_traits>
#include <string>
template <template <class> class TT> //#1
struct Foo {
static void foo() {
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(TT("abc")), TT<std::string>>);
}
};
template <class T>
struct Bar {
Bar(T) {}
};
template <class T>
Bar(T) -> Bar<std::string>; //#2
int main() {
Foo<Bar>::foo();
}
[clang] as well as [gcc] both seem to use user provided deduction guides (#2) when deducing the template parameter of template template parameter (#1). Is it a standard compliant feature?
Upvotes: 8
Views: 246
Reputation: 303216
Yes, this is standard compliant.
According to [dcl.type.simple]/2:
A type-specifier of the form
typename
opt nested-name-specifieropt template-name is a placeholder for a deduced class type ([dcl.type.class.deduct]). The template-name shall name a class template that is not an injected-class-name.
And [temp.param]/3:
A type-parameter whose identifier does not follow an ellipsis defines its identifier to be a typedef-name (if declared without
template
) or template-name (if declared withtemplate
) in the scope of the template declaration.
TT
is a type-parameter declared with template
, which makes it a template-name and hence a placeholder for a deduced class type. All the usual rules apply just fine.
Upvotes: 5