Created on 2009-05-27.00:00:00 last changed 143 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.)
|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|