Created on 2005-10-05.00:00:00 last changed 90 months ago
[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting; moved to DR at the October, 2012 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (August, 2011):
Change 9.2.9 [dcl.type] paragraph 3 as follows:
Atleast one type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier is required in a declaration unless it declares a constructor, destructor or conversion function.92 A type-specifier-seq shall not define...
(Note: paper N2546, voted into the Working Draft in February, 2008, addresses part of this issue.)
The constraints on type-specifiers given in 9.2.9 [dcl.type] paragraphs 2 and 3 (at most one type-specifier except as specified, at least one type-specifier, no redundant cv-qualifiers) are couched in terms of decl-specifier-seqs and declarations. However, they should also apply to constructs that are not syntactically declarations and that are defined to use type-specifier-seqs, including 126.96.36.199 [expr.new], 8.7 [stmt.jump], 9.3.2 [dcl.name], and 188.8.131.52 [class.conv.fct].
|2014-03-03 00:00:00||admin||set||status: drwp -> cd3|
|2012-11-03 00:00:00||admin||set||status: dr -> drwp|
|2012-02-27 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg3802|
|2012-02-27 00:00:00||admin||set||status: ready -> dr|
|2011-09-06 00:00:00||admin||set||status: review -> ready|
|2008-05-18 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg1655|
|2008-05-18 00:00:00||admin||set||status: open -> review|