Created on 2013-08-16.00:00:00 last changed 77 months ago
[Moved to DR at the February, 2014 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (January, 2014):
Change _N4527_.12.9 [class.inhctor] paragraph 4 as follows:
A constructor so declared has the same access as the corresponding constructor in X. It is deleted if the corresponding constructor in X is deleted (9.5 [dcl.fct.def]).
It is not clear whether it is permitted to explicitly instantiate or explicitly specialize specializations of inheriting constructor templates. Since inheriting constructors are considered to be implicitly declared (_N4527_.12.9 [class.inhctor] paragraph 1), it might be inferred that 13.9.3 [temp.explicit] paragraph 4 forbids their explicit instantiation:
If the declaration of the explicit instantiation names an implicitly-declared special member function (Clause 11.4.4 [special]), the program is ill-formed.
Similarly, an explicit specialization provides a definition for the specialized member, and 11.4.4 [special] paragraph 1 forbids defining an implicitly-declared special member function.
These inferences do not seem conclusive, however, so an explicit statement in _N4527_.12.9 [class.inhctor] would be helpful.
(See also issue 1780.)
|2014-11-24 00:00:00||admin||set||status: dr -> c++14|
|2014-03-03 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg4961|
|2014-03-03 00:00:00||admin||set||status: tentatively ready -> dr|
|2014-01-20 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg4736|
|2014-01-20 00:00:00||admin||set||status: drafting -> tentatively ready|
|2013-10-14 00:00:00||admin||set||status: open -> drafting|