According to [[dcl.type.elab]
p2](http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.type.elab#2):
> If an
[elaborated-type-specifier](http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.type.elab#nt:elaborated-type-specifier)
is the sole constituent of a declaration, the declaration is ill-formed
unless it is an explicit specialization, an explicit instantiation or it
has one of the following forms [...]
Consider the following:
```cpp
template<typename T>
struct A
{
template<typename U>
struct B;
};
template<>
template<typename U>
struct A<int>::B; // #1
```
The _elaborated-type-specifier_ at `#1` declares an explicit
specialization (which is itself a template). We currently (incorrectly)
reject this, and this PR fixes that.
I moved the point at which _elaborated-type-specifiers_ with
_nested-name-specifiers_ are diagnosed from `ParsedFreeStandingDeclSpec`
to `ActOnTag` for two reasons: `ActOnTag` isn't called for explicit
instantiations and partial/explicit specializations, and because it's
where we determine if a member specialization is being declared.
With respect to diagnostics, I am currently issuing the diagnostic
without marking the declaration as invalid or returning early, which
results in more diagnostics that I think is necessary. I would like
feedback regarding what the "correct" behavior should be here.
a0d266d705