- Title
- Rules for determining existence of implicit conversion sequence
- Status
- c++11
- Section
- 12.2.3 [over.match.viable]
- Submitter
- US
Created on 2010-08-03.00:00:00 last changed 152 months ago
Messages
Date: 2010-11-15.00:00:00
[Voted into the WP at the November, 2010 meeting.]
Date: 2010-08-15.00:00:00
Proposed resolution (August, 2010): Change 12.2.4.2.5 [over.ics.ref] paragraph 3 as follows:
Except for an implicit object parameter, for which see
12.2.2 [over.match.funcs], a standard conversion sequence
cannot be formed if it requires binding an lvalue reference
to non-const other than a reference to a non-volatile
const type to an rvalue or binding an rvalue reference to
an lvalue. [Note:...
Date: 2010-08-03.00:00:00
N3092 comment
US 67 To determine whether there is an implicit conversion
sequence that converts the argument to the corresponding
parameter, 12.2.3 [over.match.viable] paragraph 3 uses
12.2.4.2 [over.best.ics] instead of just saying
“there is an ICS if-and-only-if a copy initialization
would be well-formed.” Apparently this is intended,
but to a casual reader or an implementor reading these rules
for the first time for a new implementation, it's not clear
why that's desirable. A note should be added to explain the
rationale.
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-03-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: fdis -> c++11 |
| 2011-04-10 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: dr -> fdis |
| 2010-11-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg3193 |
| 2010-11-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: ready -> dr |
| 2010-08-23 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg2801 |
| 2010-08-03 00:00:00 | admin | create | |