Created on 2009-05-27.00:00:00 last changed 171 months ago
[Voted into WP at March, 2010 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (October, 2009):
This issues is resolved by the resolution of issue 906.
It is presumably possible to declare a defaulted copy constructor to be explicit. Should that render a class not trivially copyable, even though the copy constructor is trivial? That is, does being “trivally copyable” mean that copy initialization, and not just direct initialization, is possible?
A related question is whether the specification of triviality should require that the copy constructor and copy assignment operator must be public. (With the advent of “=default” it is possible to make them non-public, which was not the case when these definitions were crafted.)
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-03-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg2715 |
| 2010-03-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: ready -> cd2 |
| 2009-11-08 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: review -> ready |
| 2009-08-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg2187 |
| 2009-08-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> review |
| 2009-05-27 00:00:00 | admin | create | |