Created on 2004-03-18.00:00:00 last changed 196 months ago
[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change _N4778_.7.6.1.4 [expr.pseudo] paragraph 2 as follows:
The left-hand side of the dot operator shall be of scalar type. The left-hand side of the arrow operator shall be of pointer to scalar type. This scalar type is the object type.The type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same as the object type.The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type. Furthermore, the two type-names in a pseudo-destructor-name of the form::opt nested-name-specifieropt type-name ::~ type-name
shall designate the same scalar type.The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type.
_N4778_.7.6.1.4 [expr.pseudo] paragraph 2 says both:
The type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same as the object type.and also:
The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type.Which is it? "The same" or "the same up to cv-qualifiers"? The second sentence is more generous than the first. Most compilers seem to implement the less restrictive form, so I guess that's what I think we should do.
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-10-05 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: wp -> cd1 |
| 2006-11-05 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: dr -> wp |
| 2006-04-22 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg1361 |
| 2006-04-22 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: ready -> dr |
| 2005-10-22 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: review -> ready |
| 2005-05-01 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg1142 |
| 2005-05-01 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> review |
| 2004-03-18 00:00:00 | admin | create | |