clang/g++ difference with friend function

Question

Why code below well compiled in g++ but get error on clang?

#include <iostream>

class Object {};

class Print
{
public:
    template <typename CharT>
    inline friend std::basic_ostream<CharT> & operator<<(std::basic_ostream<CharT> & out, const Object&)
    {
        return (out << "object");
    }
    static void f( const Object& str )
    {
        std::cout << str;
    }
};

int main()
{
    std::cout << Object() << std::endl;
    return 0;
}

Proof links: g++ / clang++

When I moved friend function to global namespace, code well compiled for both compilers (clang++ / g++).

Which implementation in this case is more C++ Standart compatible?

Answer 1

Clang is correct here. Friend functions defined inside classes can only be found using argument-dependent-lookup on their arguments, not by ordinary lookup. Because Print is not an associated scope to Object, the operator<< should not be found. Partial quote from the Standard:

7.3.1.2 Namespace member definitions [namespace.memdef]

3 Every name first declared in a namespace is a member of that namespace. If a friend declaration in a non-local class first declares a class, function, class template or function template97 the friend is a member of the innermost enclosing namespace. The friend declaration does not by itself make the name visible to unqualified lookup (3.4.1) or qualified lookup (3.4.3). [ Note: The name of the friend will be visible in its namespace if a matching declaration is provided at namespace scope (either before or after the class definition granting friendship). — end note ] If a friend function or function template is called, its name may be found by the name lookup that considers functions from namespaces and classes associated with the types of the function arguments (3.4.2).

As @sehe mentions, the proper way to add an operator<< to Object is to define it as a global function (using Object interface) or as a friend function inside itself (using private functions from Object), not in some auxiliary class. See also Herb Sutter's old GotW column "What's in a class?"