Created on 2013-02-15.00:00:00 last changed 112 months ago
According to 11.4.5 [class.ctor] paragraph 5,
A defaulted default constructor for class X is defined as deleted if:
X is a union-like class that has a variant member with a non-trivial default constructor,
X is a union and all of its variant members are of const-qualified type (or array thereof),
X is a non-union class and all members of any anonymous union member are of const-qualified type (or array thereof),
Because the presence of a non-static data member initializer is the moral equivalent of a mem-initializer, these rules should probably be modified not to define the generated constructor as deleted when a union member has a non-static data member initializer. (Note the non-normative references in 11.5 [class.union] paragraphs 2-3 and 220.127.116.11 [dcl.type.cv] paragraph 2 that would also need to be updated if this restriction is changed.)
It would also be helpful to add a requirement to 11.5 [class.union] requiring either a non-static data member initializer or a user-provided constructor if all the members of the union have const-qualified types.
On a more general note, why is the default constructor defined as deleted just because a member has a non-trivial default constructor? The union itself doesn't know which member is the active one, and default construction won't initialize any members (assuming no brace-or-equal-initializer). It is up to the “owner” of the union to control the lifetime of the active member (if any), and requiring a user-provided constructor is forcing a design pattern that doesn't make sense. Along the same lines, why is the default destructor defined as deleted just because a member has a non-trivial destructor? I would agree with this restriction if it only applied when the union also has a user-provided constructor.
|2013-05-03 00:00:00||admin||set||status: open -> drafting|