On 15 June 2014 16:37, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > Yes, but if there is a template definition for the enum available when the > specialization is declared, the enum template is implicitly instantiated > along with its containing class, so the specialization is ill-formed because > you can't define a specialization that has already been instantiated. Which > is what the example in the standard illustrates.
Ah, I see. So it's not just the difference in the underlying type, it's that an unscoped enum cannot be specialized to begin with, even when it has an underlying type. Ok, then the patch does need further work. I don't know how to solve that part yet, guidance would be welcome.
