Movatterモバイル変換

[Moved to DR at the October, 2015 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (May, 2015):

Add the following as a new subsection in C.6.3 [diff.cpp03.expr]:

7.6.15 [expr.log.or]
Change:&& is valid in atype-name
Rationale: Required for new features
Effect on original feature: Valid C++ 2003 code may fail tocompile or produce different results in this InternationalStandard, as the following example illustrates:

  bool b1 = new int && false;           // previouslyfalse, now ill-formed  struct S { operator int(); };  bool b2 = &S::operator int && false;  // previouslyfalse, now ill-formed

The introduction of rvalue references in C++11 changed theinterpretation of some previously well-formed examples such asthe following:

  struct Struct { template <typename T> operator T(); };  bool example_1 = new int && false;               // #1  bool example_2 = &Struct::operator int && false; // #2

Previously the&& was interpreted as an operator,while it is now part of atype-name. However, this change isnot mentioned in Annex Clause Annex C [diff].