Constraints on type-specifier-seq
9.2.9 [dcl.type]
Mike Miller

Created on 2005-10-05.00:00:00 last changed 90 months ago


Date: 2012-02-15.00:00:00

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting; moved to DR at the October, 2012 meeting.]

Date: 2011-08-15.00:00:00

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 9.2.9 [dcl.type] paragraph 3 as follows:

At Except in a declaration of a constructor, destructor, or conversion function, at least one type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier is required in a declaration unless it declares a constructor, destructor or conversion function shall appear in a complete type-specifier-seq or a complete decl-specifier-seq.92 A type-specifier-seq shall not define...

(Note: paper N2546, voted into the Working Draft in February, 2008, addresses part of this issue.)

Date: 2006-04-22.00:00:00

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 [expr.new], 8.7 [stmt.jump], 9.3.2 [dcl.name], and [class.conv.fct].

Date User Action Args
2014-03-03 00:00:00adminsetstatus: drwp -> cd3
2012-11-03 00:00:00adminsetstatus: dr -> drwp
2012-02-27 00:00:00adminsetmessages: + msg3802
2012-02-27 00:00:00adminsetstatus: ready -> dr
2011-09-06 00:00:00adminsetstatus: review -> ready
2008-05-18 00:00:00adminsetmessages: + msg1655
2008-05-18 00:00:00adminsetstatus: open -> review
2005-10-05 00:00:00admincreate