Created on 2013-05-18.00:00:00 last changed 135 months ago
Rationale (September, 2013):
The combination is intentionally permitted and could be used in some circumstances to force constant initialization.
There does not appear to be language in the current wording stating that constexpr cannot be applied to a variable of volatile-qualified type. Also, the wording in 7.7 [expr.const] paragraph 2 referring to “a non-volatile object defined with constexpr” might lead one to infer that the combination is permitted but that such a variable cannot appear in a constant expression. What is the intent?
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-10-14 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg4707 |
| 2013-10-14 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> nad |
| 2013-05-18 00:00:00 | admin | create | |