partial template specialization

[Andrew Tomazos]

template<class T, bool signedness>
void f2(T);

template<class T>
void f2<T, true>(T t)
{
... do something with signed integer
}

template<class T>
void f2<T, false>(T t)
{
... do something with unsigned integer
}

template<class T>
void f(T t)
{
f2<T,numeric_limits<T>::is_signed>(t);
}

Compiler says no partial specialization.

How do I do what I'm trying to do?
-Andrew.

 

[Juha Nieminen]

Compiler says no partial specialization.

How do I do what I'm trying to do?

Support for partial specialization of functions was not in the old
C++ standard but is supported in the new one. If you want to make it
work, you'll have to start using a compiler (or compiler setting) that
supports the newer standard.

 

[Marc]

Closest to what you are trying:
template<bool b> struct Help {
static ...
};
template<> struct Help<true> {
static ...
};
And call Help<...>::function(...) from your wrapper.

You could also use overloading and enable_if instead.

Support for partial specialization of functions was not in the old
C++ standard but is supported in the new one.

Really? I don't remember hearing of such a change, and gcc/clang still
reject partial specialization of functions.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Compiler says no partial specialization.

How do I do what I'm trying to do?

Support for partial specialization of functions was not in the old
C++ standard but is supported in the new one. [..]

In faint hopes that you're not confusing "partial ordering" for "partial
specialization", could you please quote the Standard on that? Thanks!

V

 

[Juha Nieminen]

Compiler says no partial specialization.

How do I do what I'm trying to do?

Support for partial specialization of functions was not in the old
C++ standard but is supported in the new one. [..]

In faint hopes that you're not confusing "partial ordering" for "partial
specialization", could you please quote the Standard on that? Thanks!

I was probably confusing it with default template parameters. My bad.