Consider [expr.ref] paragraph 1 and the note after it:
A postfix expression followed by a dot . or an arrow ->, optionally followed by the keyword template, and then followed by an id-expression or a splice-expression, is a postfix expression.
[Note 1: If the keyword template is used and followed by an id-expression, the unqualified name is considered to refer to a template ([temp.names]). If a simple-template-id results and is followed by a ::, the id-expression is a qualified-id. — end note]
The first sentence of the note talks about unqualified name, but its definition doesn't leave any room to have it in class member access expression after dot . or arrow ->. Could it be that unqualfied-id is meant here?
Additionally, "a simple-template-id results" in the second sentence of the note feels rather awkward. Can it be improved?
Consider [expr.ref] paragraph 1 and the note after it:
The first sentence of the note talks about unqualified name, but its definition doesn't leave any room to have it in class member access expression after dot
.or arrow->. Could it be that unqualfied-id is meant here?Additionally, "a simple-template-id results" in the second sentence of the note feels rather awkward. Can it be improved?