Created on2005-10-05.00:00:00 last changed145 months ago
[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting;moved to DR at the October, 2012 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (August, 2011):
Change 9.2.9 [dcl.type] paragraph 3 as follows:
AtExcept in a declaration of a constructor,destructor, or conversion function, at least onetype-specifier that is not acv-qualifierisrequired in a declaration unless it declares a constructor, destructoror conversion functionshall appear in a completetype-specifier-seq or a completedecl-specifier-seq.92 Atype-specifier-seq shall not define...
(Note: paper N2546, voted into the Working Draft in February,2008, addresses part of this issue.)
The constraints ontype-specifiers given in9.2.9 [dcl.type] paragraphs 2 and 3 (at most onetype-specifier except as specified, at least onetype-specifier, no redundant cv-qualifiers) are couched interms ofdecl-specifier-seqs anddeclarations. However,they should also apply to constructs that are not syntacticallydeclarations and that are defined to usetype-specifier-seqs, including 7.6.2.8 [expr.new],8.8 [stmt.jump], 9.3.2 [dcl.name], and11.4.8.3 [class.conv.fct].
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-03-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: drwp -> cd3 |
| 2012-11-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: dr -> drwp |
| 2012-02-27 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: +msg3802 |
| 2012-02-27 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: ready -> dr |
| 2011-09-06 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: review -> ready |
| 2008-05-18 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: +msg1655 |
| 2008-05-18 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> review |
| 2005-10-05 00:00:00 | admin | create | |