Created on 1998-10-24.00:00:00 last changed 196 months ago
[Moved to DR at 4/01 meeting.]
Proposed Resolution (04/01):
In 9.4 [dcl.init], paragraph 14, bullet 4, sub-bullet 3, change
if the function is a constructor, the call initializes a temporary of the destination type.
to
if the function is a constructor, the call initializes a temporary of the cv-unqualified version of the destination type.
Notes from 10/00 meeting:
The original example does not illustrate the remaining problem. The following example does:
struct C { }; C c; struct A { A(const A&); A(const C&); }; const volatile A a = c; // Okay
The description of copy-initialization in 9.4 [dcl.init] paragraph 14 says:
struct A { A(A&); }; struct B : A { }; struct C { operator B&(); }; C c; const A a = c; // allowed?
The temporary created with the conversion function is an lvalue of type B. If the temporary must have the cv-qualifiers of the destination type (i.e. const) then the copy-constructor for A cannot be called to create the object of type A from the lvalue of type const B. If the temporary has the cv-qualifiers of the result type of the conversion function, then the copy-constructor for A can be called to create the object of type A from the lvalue of type const B. This last outcome seems more appropriate.
Steve Adamczyk:
Because of late changes to this area, the relevant text is now the third sub-bullet of the fourth bullet of 9.4 [dcl.init] paragraph 14:
Otherwise (i.e., for the remaining copy-initialization cases), user-defined conversion sequences that can convert from the source type to the destination type or (when a conversion function is used) to a derived class thereof are enumerated... The function selected is called with the initializer expression as its argument; if the function is a constructor, the call initializes a temporary of the destination type. The result of the call (which is the temporary for the constructor case) is then used to direct-initialize, according to the rules above, the object that is the destination of the copy-initialization.
The issue still remains whether the wording should refer to "the cv-unqualified version of the destination type." I think it should.
History | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | User | Action | Args |
2008-10-05 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: wp -> cd1 |
2003-04-25 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: dr -> wp |
2002-05-10 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg673 |
2001-05-20 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: ready -> dr |
2000-11-18 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg398 |
2000-11-18 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg397 |
2000-11-18 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: drafting -> ready |
1998-10-24 00:00:00 | admin | create |