Date: 2006-10-15.00:00:00

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

Date: 2005-10-15.00:00:00

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

1. Change 11.3 [class.name] paragraph 5 as indicated:

A typedef-name (9.2.4 [dcl.typedef]) that names a class type, or a cv-qualified version thereof, is also a class-name, but class-name. If a typedef-name that names a cv-qualified class type is used where a class-name is required, the cv-qualifiers are ignored. A typedef-name shall not be used as the identifier in a class-head.

2. Delete 9.2.4 [dcl.typedef] paragraph 8:

[Note: if the typedef-name is used where a class-name (or enum-name) is required, the program is ill-formed. For example,

    typedef struct {
        S();     // error: requires a return type because S is
                  // an ordinary member function, not a constructor
    } S;

—end note]

Date: 2005-06-15.00:00:00

Additional notes (June, 2005):

It's not completely clear what it means to have a cv-qualified type as a base-specifier. The original proposed resolution for issue 298 said that “the cv-qualifiers are ignored,” but that wording is not in the resolution that was ultimately approved.

If the cv-qualifiers are not ignored, does that mean that the base-class subobject should be treated as always similarly cv-qualified, regardless of the cv-qualification of the derived-class lvalue used to access the base-class subobject? For instance:

    typedef struct B {
        void f();
        void f() const;
        int i;
    } const CB;
    struct D: CB { };
    void g(D* dp) {
        dp->f();    // which B::f?
        dp->i = 3;  // permitted?
    }

Date: 2005-04-15.00:00:00

Rationale (April, 2005):

The resolution of issue 298 added new text to 11.3 [class.name] paragraph 5 making it clear that a typedef that names a cv-qualified class type is a class-name. Because the definition of base-specifier simply refers to class-name, it is already the case that cv-qualified class types are permitted as base-specifiers.

Date: 2022-11-20.07:54:16

Issue 298, recently approved, affirms that cv-qualified class types can be used as nested-name-specifiers. Should the same be true for base-specifiers?