Proposed resolution (10/00):

Change the grammar in 9.2.9.5 [dcl.type.elab] to read

elaborated-type-specifier:
class-key ::_opt nested-name-specifier_opt identifier
class-key ::_opt nested-name-specifier_opt template_opt template-id
enum ::_opt nested-name-specifier_opt identifier
typename ::_opt nested-name-specifier identifier
typename ::_opt nested-name-specifier template_opt template-id

and change the forms allowed in paragraph 1 to

class-key identifier ;
friend class-key ::_opt identifier ;
friend class-key ::_opt template-id ;
friend class-key ::_opt nested-name-specifier identifier ;
friend class-key ::_opt nested-name-specifier template_opt template-id ;

I can't find the answer to the following in the standard. Does anybody have a reference?

The syntax for elaborated type specifier is

elaborated-type-specifier:
If an elaborated-type-specifier is the sole constituent of a declaration, the declaration is ill-formed unless it is an explicit specialization (13.9.4 [temp.expl.spec] ), an explicit instantiation (13.9.3 [temp.explicit] ) or it has one of the following forms:
class-key identifier ;
friend class-key identifier ;
friend class-key :: identifier ;
friend class-key nested-name-specifier identifier  ;

Which does not allow the production

    class foo<int> // foo is a template

On the other hand, a friend declaration seems to require this production,

An elaborated-type-specifier shall be used in a friend declaration for a class.*

[Footnote: The class-key of the elaborated-type-specifier is required. —end footnote]

And in 13.7.5 [temp.friend] we find the example

[Example:

    template<class T> class task;
    template<class T> task<T>* preempt(task<T>*);
    template<class T> class task {
        // ...
        friend void next_time();
        friend void process(task<T>*);
        friend task<T>* preempt<T>(task<T>*);
        template<class C> friend int func(C);
        friend class task<int>;
        template<class P> friend class frd;
        // ...
    };

Is there some special dispensation somewhere to allow the syntax in this context? Is there something I've missed about elaborated-type-specifier? Is it just another bug in the standard?

An additional problem was reported via comp.std.c++ : the grammar does not allow the following example:

    namespace A{
      class B{};
    };
    namespace B{
      class A{};
      class C{
	friend class ::A::B;
      };
    };

History Date User Action Args 2003-04-25 00:00:00adminsetstatus: dr -> tc1 2000-11-18 00:00:00adminsetstatus: review -> dr 2000-05-21 00:00:00adminsetstatus: drafting -> review 1999-09-14 00:00:00adminsetmessages: + msg97 1999-09-14 00:00:00adminsetstatus: open -> drafting 1998-10-17 00:00:00admincreate