Template which is of non class type

Keywords Escape sequences. Namespace declaration. Namespace aliases. Fundamental types Enumeration types Function types. Compound types Union types.

Default initialization Value initialization Zero initialization Copy initialization Direct initialization. Expressions Value categories Order of evaluation. Operators Operator precedence. Class declaration Constructors this pointer. Access specifiers friend specifier. Class template Function template. Inline assembly. Basic Concepts language keywords phases of translation comments the main function names and identifiers types fundamental types objects scope object lifetime storage duration and linkage definitions and ODR name lookup qualified name lookup unqualified name lookup the as-if rule undefined behavior memory model.

C documentation for Type. Category : Todo with reason. Compiler support. Freestanding and hosted. I get the following error: nonclass. Foo foo2 ; change to Foo foo2; You get the error because compiler thinks of Foo foo2 as of function declaration with name 'foo2' and the return type 'Foo'. Just for the record.. Just use Foo foo2; It will work. I ran into a case where I got that error message and had Foo foo Bar ; and was basically trying to pass in a temporary Bar object to the Foo constructor.

If you want to declare a new substance with no parameter knowing that the object have default parameters don't write type substance1 ; but type substance;. Using this we can do something like this. Foo foo1 1 ; foo1. Foo foo2 ; foo2. I get the following error: nonclass. Asked By: sarnesjo. Answered By: Mykola Golubyev.

Answered By: ezdazuzena. Foo foo1 1 ; foo1. Foo foo2 ; foo2. I get the following error: nonclass. Improve this question. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Foo foo2 ; change to Foo foo2; You get the error because compiler thinks of Foo foo2 as of function declaration with name 'foo2' and the return type 'Foo'. Improve this answer. Edward Karak Mykola Golubyev Mykola Golubyev I don't understand why the compiler thinks : Foo foo2 as of function declaration, inside the main function.

Apparently I've landed on this answer before since I can not upvote it again! Here is a textual 2nd upvote Parameterless function declaration should have mandated "void" parameter so that this usage would have been allowed from consistency point of view. Rajesh: A void parameter list is not mandatory, it just means something different zero parameters from an empty parameter list unspecified parameters.