Title
Can a closure type's operator() be virtual?
Status
cd2
Section
7.5.5 [expr.prim.lambda]
Submitter
Daniel Kr├╝gler

Created on 2009-08-19.00:00:00 last changed 143 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 7.5.5 [expr.prim.lambda] paragraph 5 as follows:

... followed by mutable. It is not neither 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 00:00:00adminsetmessages: + msg2672
2010-03-29 00:00:00adminsetstatus: ready -> cd2
2009-11-08 00:00:00adminsetmessages: + msg2342
2009-11-08 00:00:00adminsetstatus: open -> ready
2009-08-19 00:00:00admincreate