I disagree. What happens is that B<double> names "a given implicit
instantiation" of B, and what is being explicitly specialized is a member
of that implicit instantiation. This is the case at
http://eel.is/c++draft/temp#expl.spec-16 .

Am Mo., 28. Sept. 2020 um 17:52 Uhr schrieb Thiago Macieira via
Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]>:

> On Monday, 28 September 2020 01:51:24 PDT jim x via Std-Discussion wrote:
> > Consider the above example, The comment says that the code is ill-formed.
> > However, I have to say, such a case is not covered by this rule. My
> reason
> > is that, please note the bolded wording, that is "class member template",
> > in this explicit specialization, `mf2` is not a class member *template,
> *it
> > just a member of a class template
>
> B<double> is being specialised and that is a template.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
> Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering
>
>
>
> --
> Std-Discussion mailing list
> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion
>