Created on 2014-02-19.00:00:00 last changed 49 months ago
[Moved to DR at the May, 2015 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (June, 2014):
Delete the third item of 6.4.6 [basic.scope.class] paragraph 1 and renumber the succeeding items:
If reordering member declarations in a
class yields an alternate valid program under (1) and (2), the
program is ill-formed, no diagnostic is
The rules for class scope in 6.4.6 [basic.scope.class] paragraph 1 include the following:
A name N used in a class S shall refer to the same declaration in its context and when re-evaluated in the completed scope of S. No diagnostic is required for a violation of this rule.
If reordering member declarations in a class yields an alternate valid program under (1) and (2), the program is ill-formed, no diagnostic is required.
The need for rule #3 is not clear; it would seem that any otherwise-valid reordering would have to violate rule #2 in order to yield a different interpretation. Taken literally, rule #3 would also apply to simply reordering nonstatic data members with no name dependencies at all. Can it be simply removed?
|2017-02-06 00:00:00||admin||set||status: drwp -> cd4|
|2015-11-10 00:00:00||admin||set||status: dr -> drwp|
|2015-05-25 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg6039|
|2015-05-25 00:00:00||admin||set||status: ready -> dr|
|2014-07-07 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg5063|
|2014-07-07 00:00:00||admin||set||status: open -> ready|