This is probably going to be a really simple explanation, but I'm going to give as much backstory as possible in case I'm wrong. Advanced apologies for being so verbose. I'm using gcc4.5, and I realize the c++0x support is still somewhat experimental, but I'm going to act on the assumption that there's a non-bug related reason for the behavior I'm seeing.
I'm experimenting with variadic function templates. The end goal was to build a cons-list out of std::pair. It wasn't meant to be a custom type, just a string of pair objects. The function that constructs the list would have to be in some way recursive, with the ultimate return value being dependent on the result of the recursive calls. As an added twist, successive parameters are added together before being inserted into the list. So if I pass [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] the end result should be {1+2, {3+4, 5+6}}.
My initial attempt was fairly naive. A function, Build, with two overloads. One took two identical parameters and simply returned their sum. The other took two parameters and a parameter pack. The return value was a pair consisting of the sum of the two set parameters, and the recursive call. In retrospect, this was obviously a flawed strategy, because the function isn't declared when I try to figure out its return type, so it has no choice but to resolve to the non-recursive version.
That I understand. Where I got confused was the second iteration. I decided to make those functions static members of a template class. The function calls themselves are not parameterized, but instead the entire class is. My assumption was that when the recursive function attempts to generate its return type, it would instantiate a whole new version of the structure with its own static function, and everything would work itself out.
The result was: "error: no matching function for call to BuildStruct<double, double, char, char>::Go(const char&, const c