Created on 2018-07-02.00:00:00, last changed 2018-07-20.21:06:57.
This wording is relative to N4758.
Edit [propagate_const.class_type_requirements] as indicated:
-1- If T is class type then it shall satisfy the following requirements. In this sub-clause t denotes a non-const lvalue of type T, ct is
a const T& bound to t, element_type denotes an object type.
[ 2018-07-20 Priority set to 3 after reflector discussion ]
In the LFTSv3 prospective-working-paper N4758, [propagate_const.class_type_requirements] uses a strange turn of phrase:
"In this sub-clause, t denotes a non-const lvlaue of type T, ct is a const T& bound to t, […]"
The last bit is strange: "ct is a const T& bound to t" is not how we usually say things. The specification-variables usually denote values, and values can't be references. Perhaps we could just say, "ct is as_const(t)"?
|2018-07-20 21:06:57||admin||set||messages: + msg10006|
|2018-07-07 17:39:00||admin||set||messages: + msg9981|