Created on 2014-01-10.00:00:00 last changed 49 months ago
[Moved to DR at the November, 2014 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (February, 2014):
Add the following as a new paragraph before 9.2 [dcl.spec] paragraph 2:
If a type-name is encountered...
Although repeated type-specifiers such as const are forbidden, there is no such prohibition against repeated non-type specifiers like constexpr and virtual. Should there be?
On the “con” side, it's not clear that such a prohibition actually helps anyone; it could happen via macros, and a warning about non-macro use could be a QoI issue. Also, C99 moved in the opposite direction, removing the prohibition against repeated cv-qualifiers.
|2017-02-06 00:00:00||admin||set||status: drwp -> cd4|
|2015-05-25 00:00:00||admin||set||status: dr -> drwp|
|2015-04-13 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg5354|
|2014-11-24 00:00:00||admin||set||status: ready -> dr|
|2014-03-03 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg4817|
|2014-03-03 00:00:00||admin||set||status: open -> ready|