------- Comment #7 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-29 14:22 -------
Actually, I don't know whether max<T, Params...> is valid or not. My
inclination is that it is invalid, because when Params is empty, it becomes an
invalid specialization max<T>. (This happens, for example, if we try to compute
max<int, 17>::value. However, it's not clear to me whether the wording in the
C++0x working draft supports that view or not. We say this about function
parameter pack arguments not matching to normal function parameters in partial
ordering, but we don't talk about this case at all.
I am going to submit an issue to the C++ Core Working Group to get this
clarified. Until then, I'm going to suspend this bug: then we'll either close
it (if the committee deems this code ill-formed) or re-open it to be fixed in
GCC 4.4.
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34219
