- Title
- Can a closure type's operator() be virtual?
- Status
- cd2
- Section
- 7.5.6.2 [expr.prim.lambda.closure]
- Submitter
- Daniel Krügler
Created on 2009-08-19.00:00:00 last changed 189 months ago
Messages
Date: 2010-03-15.00:00:00
[Voted into WP at March, 2010 meeting.]
Date: 2009-10-15.00:00:00
Proposed resolution (October, 2009):
Change 7.5.6 [expr.prim.lambda] paragraph 5 as follows:
... followed by mutable. It isnotneither virtual nor declared volatile. Default arguments...
Date: 2009-08-19.00:00:00
The specification of the members of a closure type does not rule out the possibility that its operator() might be virtual. It would be better to make it clear that it cannot.
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-03-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg2672 |
| 2010-03-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: ready -> cd2 |
| 2009-11-08 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg2342 |
| 2009-11-08 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> ready |
| 2009-08-19 00:00:00 | admin | create | |