Created on 2007-08-09.00:00:00 last changed 199 months ago
Rationale (June, 2008):
A copy constructor takes a reference as its first parameter, thus no user-declared copy constructor can be constexpr.
6.8 [basic.types] paragraph 11 requires that a class type have a trivial copy constructor in order to be classified as a literal type. This seems overly restrictive; presumably having a constexpr copy constructor would suffice. (Note that a trivial copy constructor is a constexpr constructor according to 9.2.6 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 4.)
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-06-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: review -> nad |
| 2008-05-18 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg1649 |
| 2008-05-18 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> review |
| 2008-03-17 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: drafting -> open |
| 2007-10-09 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> drafting |
| 2007-08-09 00:00:00 | admin | create | |