A few things in the article aren't quite right and should be corrected:
A template is an entity by definition. However, it would be correct to say that a function template is not a function.
To my knowledge, "deriving to" or "deriving into" isn't correct English. However, you can say "turning into", which most would consider simpler language anyway.
It's called "function template", but the heading says "template function". We don't need to be pedantically correct in these articles, but at least we should use the terminology from the standard/cppreference.
A few things in the article aren't quite right and should be corrected:
A template is an entity by definition. However, it would be correct to say that a function template is not a function.
To my knowledge, "deriving to" or "deriving into" isn't correct English. However, you can say "turning into", which most would consider simpler language anyway.
It's called "function template", but the heading says "template function". We don't need to be pedantically correct in these articles, but at least we should use the terminology from the standard/cppreference.