Template type deduction and specialization

[Daniel Kozák via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:23:05 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com>
wrote:

> On 05/20/2015 04:10 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 13:46:22 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
> >> DOC say  `may not have` not `must not have` ;-)
> >>
> >
> > OK, if that's the intent, it needs to be reworded. As it stands, it
> > looks more like it's saying specialization is not permissible,
> > rather than what "might" be possible.
> 
> That's the only meaning that I get: The doc means "must not". Yet, as 
> you've shown, the behavior does not match the doc.
> 
> Ali
> 
1.) we could fix just doc - easiest, but inconsistent

2.) remove implicit deduction even for fun(T:char)(T c) and all other
specialization - code breakage so imho not good

3.) fix doc and allow even fun(T:T*)(T* p) - same as 2