Created on 2014-01-13.00:00:00 last changed 110 months ago
Additional note, April, 2015:
EWG has decided not to make a change in this area.
It appears that naming an implicitly-declared member function in a friend declaration requires the full set of decorations to be specified. For example,
struct A { };
struct B { friend constexpr A::A() noexcept; };
There is implementation variation regarding the enforcement of this requirement, however. Should the Standard provide default treatment for such cases, allowing the simpler
friend A::A();
?
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-04-13 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg5433 |
| 2015-04-13 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: extension -> nad |
| 2014-03-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> extension |
| 2014-01-13 00:00:00 | admin | create | |