Created on 2014-01-07.00:00:00 last changed 130 months ago
Notes from the February, 2014 meeting:
CWG agreed that an ambiguity like this should make the initialization ill-formed instead of falling through to do indirect binding.
In the following case,
struct A { operator int &&() const; operator int &&() volatile; operator long(); }; int main() { int &&x = A(); }
the conversion for direct binding cannot be used because of the ambiguity, so indirect binding is used, which allows the use of the conversion to long in creating the temporary.
Is this intended? There is implementation variation.
History | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | User | Action | Args |
2014-03-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg4884 |
2014-03-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> drafting |
2014-01-07 00:00:00 | admin | create |