Created on 2015-11-25.00:00:00 last changed 81 months ago
Rationale (November, 2016):
There was no actual issue; the question was based on a misunderstanding of the current specification.
11.9.3 [class.base.init] paragraph 3 singles out base classes when indicating the allowance of typedefs, etc. for the naming of types in a mem-initializer-list. It appears that the omission of the class of the constructor is unintentional.
Rationale (November, 2016):
There was no actual issue; the question was based on a misunderstanding of the current specification.
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-02-27 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg6017 |
| 2018-02-27 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> nad |
| 2015-11-25 00:00:00 | admin | create | |