This is very similar to this question, but I'm not sure the answer there is entirely applicable to the minimal code I've put together that demonstrates the issue. (My code does not use trailing-return types, and there are some other differences as well.) Additionally, the issue of whether MSVC's behavior is legal doesn't seem to be addressed.
In short, I'm seeing the compiler select a generic function template instantiation rather than a more-specific overload when the function template is inside a namespace.
Consider the following set of namespace and class definitions:
namespace DoStuffUtilNamespace
{
template<typename UNKNOWN>
void doStuff(UNKNOWN& foo)
{
static_assert(sizeof(UNKNOWN) == -1, "CANNOT USE DEFAULT INSTANTIATION!");
}
}
class UtilForDoingStuff
{
public:
template <typename UNKNOWN>
void doStuffWithObjectRef(UNKNOWN& ref)
{
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(ref);
}
};
class MyClassThatCanDoStuff { };
namespace DoStuffUtilNamespace
{
using ::MyClassThatCanDoStuff; // No effect.
void doStuff(MyClassThatCanDoStuff& foo) { /* No assertion! */ }
}
... and the following use-cases:
int main()
{
MyClassThatCanDoStuff foo;
DoStuffUtilNamespace::MyClassThatCanDoStuff scoped_foo;
UtilForDoingStuff util;
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(foo); // Compiles
DoStuffUtilNamespace::doStuff(scoped_foo); // Compiles
util.doStuffWithObjectRef(foo); // Triggers static assert
util.doStuffWithObjectRef(scoped_foo); // Triggers static assert
}
If the entire DoStuffUtilNamespace is eliminated and all its members are moved to global scope, this compiles fine with G++ and Clang++.
With the namespace, doStuff is of course a dependent name. According to the top-voted answer on the similar question, the standard says:
In resolving dependent names, names from the following sources are considered:
Declarations that are visible at the point of definition of the template.
Declarations from namespaces associated with the types of the function arguments both from the instantiation context and from the definition context.
This seems a little odd to me; I don't understand why the first bullet point would specify that the declarations must be visible at the point of definition of the template rather than at the point of instantiation, since the second bullet point explicitly specifies that some declarations visible only at the point of instantiation are allowed. (If someone would like to offer a rationale, I'd appreciate it, but that's not my question because it's my understanding that questions of the form "why did the standards committee decide X" are off topic.)
So I think that explains why util.doStuffWithObjectRef(foo); triggers the static assertion: doStuff(MyClassThatCanDoStuff&) hasn't been declared at the point of definition of UtilForDoingStuff::doStuffWithObjectRef<UNKNOWN>(UNKNOWN&). And indeed moving the class UtilForDoingStuff definition after the doStuff overload has been defined seems to fix the issue.
But what exactly does the standard mean by "namespaces associated with the types of the function arguments"? Shouldn't the using ::MyClassThatCanDoStuff declaration, together with the explicit scoping of the scoped_foo instance type within the namespace, trigger argument-dependent lookup, and shouldn't this look-up find the non-asserting definition of doStuff()?
Also, the entire code is compiled without error using clang++ -ftemplate-delayed-parsing, which emulates MSVC's template-parsing behavior. This seems preferable, at least in this particular case, because the ability to add new declarations to a namespace at any time is one of the primary appeals of namespaces. But, as noted above, it doesn't quite seem to follow the letter of the law, according to the standard. Is it permissible, or is it an instance of non-conformance?
EDIT:: As pointed out by KIIV, there is a workaround; the code compiles if template specialization is used instead of overloading. I would still like to know the answers to my questions about the standard.
