Created on 2020-01-07.00:00:00 last changed 38 months ago
[ 2021-10-23 Resolved by the adoption of P2393R1 at the October 2021 plenary. Status changed: New → Resolved. ]
[ 2020-01-25 Issue Prioritization ]
Priority to 3 after reflector discussion.
The working draft ignores the possibility that:
the value of an expression of integer-class type might not be representable by the target integer type of a conversion, and
the value of an expression of integer type might not be representable by the target integer-class type of a conversion.
Presumably the behavior of these cases is undefined by omission; is this actually the intent?
Notably (2) could be specified away by mandating that all integer-class types are capable of representing the value range of all integer types of the same signedness.| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2021-10-23 11:04:22 | admin | set | messages: + msg12178 |
| 2021-10-23 11:04:22 | admin | set | status: new -> resolved |
| 2020-01-25 14:39:45 | admin | set | messages: + msg10962 |
| 2020-01-07 00:00:00 | admin | create | |