Created on 2015-12-21.00:00:00 last changed 83 months ago
Rationale (November, 2016):
Such constructors can be useful for guaranteeing static initialization of namespace-scope objects.
Given an example like:
struct S {
constexpr S(): i(42) { }
~S();
int i;
};
double x[S().i]; // Error
such a constexpr constructor is completely useless, but there doesn't appear to be anything in the current wording making it ill-formed. Should it be?
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-02-27 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg6014 |
| 2018-02-27 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> nad |
| 2015-12-21 00:00:00 | admin | create | |