Created on 2009-04-06.00:00:00 last changed 130 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 keyword const is ignored if it appears in the cv-qualifier-seq of the function declarator of the declaration of such a member function. 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?
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 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 |
| 2009-04-06 00:00:00 | admin | create | |