Title
decltype-specifiers, abstract classes, and deduction failure
Status
cd5
Section
7.6.1.3 [expr.call]
Submitter
Jason Merrill

Created on 2013-03-28.00:00:00 last changed 5 months ago

Messages

Date: 2018-06-15.00:00:00

[Adopted at the June, 2018 meeting as part of paper P0929R2.]

According to 7.6.1.3 [expr.call] paragraph 11,

If a function call is a prvalue of object type:

  • if the function call is either

    • the operand of a decltype-specifier or

    • the right operand of a comma operator that is the operand of a decltype-specifier,

    a temporary object is not introduced for the prvalue. The type of the prvalue may be incomplete. [Note: as a result, storage is not allocated for the prvalue and it is not destroyed; thus, a class type is not instantiated as a result of being the type of a function call in this context. This is true regardless of whether the expression uses function call notation or operator notation (12.2.2.3 [over.match.oper]). —end note] [Note: unlike the rule for a decltype-specifier that considers whether an id-expression is parenthesized (9.2.9.3 [dcl.type.simple]), parentheses have no special meaning in this context. —end note]

  • otherwise, the type of the prvalue shall be complete.

Thus, an example like

  template <class T> struct A: T { };
  template <class T> A<T> f(T) { return A<T>(); };
  decltype(f(42)) *p;

is well-formed. However, a function template specialization in which the return type is an abstract class should be a deduction failure, per 13.10.3 [temp.deduct] paragraph 8, last bullet:

  • ...

  • Attempting to create a function type in which a parameter type or the return type is an abstract class type (11.7.4 [class.abstract]).

The requirement that the return type in a function call in a decltype-specifier not be instantiated prevents the detection of this deduction failure in an example like:

  template <class T> struct A { virtual void f() = 0; };
  template <class T> A<T> f(T) { return A<T>(); };
  decltype(f(42)) *p;

It is not clear how this should be resolved.

(See also issue 1640.)

History
Date User Action Args
2021-02-17 00:00:00adminsetstatus: drafting -> cd5
2013-03-28 00:00:00admincreate