Created on 2001-07-25.00:00:00 last changed 274 months ago
Proposed resolution (10/01):
Add the indicated wording to the indicated sentence in 9.5 [dcl.init] paragraph 5:
A program that calls for default-initialization or value-initialization of an entity of reference type is ill-formed.
Another glitch in the TC1/core issue 178 definition of value-initialization: it's no longer an error to value-initialize a reference. That makes an example like
typedef struct { int &r; } S;
int main() {
S(); // Error in C++98, okay in TC1!
}
valid, which has got to be wrong. See 9.5 [dcl.init] paragraph
5, where there is wording that forbids default-initialization of a
reference, but not value-initialization thereof. As noted in
issue 302, if
the default constructor were required to be generated when a
value-initialization is done, that would force an error.
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2003-04-25 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: dr -> tc1 |
| 2002-05-10 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: review -> dr |
| 2001-11-09 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg555 |
| 2001-11-09 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> review |
| 2001-07-25 00:00:00 | admin | create | |