Created on 2017-09-04.00:00:00 last changed 65 months ago
Proposed resolution:
This wording is relative to N4687.
Edit [optional.optional] p1 as indicated:
[…] The contained value shall be allocated in a region of the optional<T> storage suitably aligned for the type T. It is implementation-defined whether over-aligned types are supported ([basic.align]). When an object of type optional<T> is contextually converted to bool, the conversion returns true if the object contains a value; otherwise the conversion returns false.
[ 2017-11 Albuquerque Wednesday night issues processing ]
Priority set to 3; Casey to provide rationale for closing as NAD.
2018-11 Closed as NAD with the adoption of P0899R1
LWG issue 2555 added "It is implementation-defined whether over-aligned types are supported (C++14 §3.11)." to the specification of std::experimental::optional in LFTS, however that issue wasn't moved until optional had already been merged to the IS working paper, so it isn't present in the specification of std::optional. Should the same rule be added for std::optional as well?
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-11-27 15:24:58 | admin | set | status: new -> nad |
| 2017-11-09 15:13:04 | admin | set | messages: + msg9518 |
| 2017-09-10 12:19:32 | admin | set | messages: + msg9457 |
| 2017-09-04 00:00:00 | admin | create | |