Created on 2009-04-06.00:00:00 last changed 96 months ago
[Voted into WP at August, 2010 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (February, 2010):
Change 9.2.6 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 6 as follows:
A constexpr specifier for a non-static member function that is not a constructor declares that member function to be const (11.4.3 [class.mfct.non-static]). [Note: the constexpr specifier has no other effect on the function type. —end note] The class of which that function is a member shall be a literal type (6.8 [basic.types]). [Example:...
Notes from the July, 2009 meeting:
The CWG agreed that a const qualifier on a constexpr member function is simply redundant and not an error.
9.2.6 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 6 says,
A constexpr specifier for a non-static member function that is not a constructor declares that member function to be const (11.4.3 [class.mfct.non-static]).
Is a const qualifier on such a member function redundant or ill-formed?
|2014-03-03 00:00:00||admin||set||status: fdis -> c++11|
|2011-04-10 00:00:00||admin||set||status: wp -> fdis|
|2010-11-29 00:00:00||admin||set||status: dr -> wp|
|2010-08-23 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg2912|
|2010-08-23 00:00:00||admin||set||status: ready -> dr|
|2010-03-29 00:00:00||admin||set||status: review -> ready|
|2010-02-16 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg2534|
|2010-02-16 00:00:00||admin||set||status: drafting -> review|
|2009-08-03 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg2195|
|2009-08-03 00:00:00||admin||set||status: open -> drafting|