Discussion:
When does resolution of CWG 903 take effect?
(too old to reply)
FrankHB1989
2018-10-17 17:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Why it is [diff.cpp03.conv], not [diff.cpp11.conv]?
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-discussion+***@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-***@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-discussion/.
Kazutoshi Satoda
2018-10-17 17:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankHB1989
Why it is [diff.cpp03.conv], not [diff.cpp11.conv]?
I saw a similar question and answer at GCC bugzilla:
"80648 – [DR903] Valid C++11 null pointer constant (1-1) is rejected"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80648#c10
Post by FrankHB1989
Jason Merrill 2017-05-08 12:43:05 UTC
The committee has recently started indicating explicitly whether a
particular DR is intended to apply to the existing standard or only to
the next one; most fall into the former category. We weren't doing that
at the time of DR 903, but it clearly is intended to resolve an issue
introduced in C++11 with constexpr, so I think it clearly should apply.
Hope this helps.
--
k_satoda
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-discussion+***@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-***@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-discussion/.
FrankHB1989
2018-10-17 18:55:08 UTC
Permalink
圚 2018幎10月18日星期四 UTC+8䞊午1:43:09Kazutoshi SATODA写道
Post by FrankHB1989
Why it is [diff.cpp03.conv], not [diff.cpp11.conv]?
"80648 – [DR903] Valid C++11 null pointer constant (1-1) is rejected"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80648#c10
Post by FrankHB1989
Jason Merrill 2017-05-08 12:43:05 UTC
The committee has recently started indicating explicitly whether a
particular DR is intended to apply to the existing standard or only to
the next one; most fall into the former category. We weren't doing that
at the time of DR 903, but it clearly is intended to resolve an issue
introduced in C++11 with constexpr, so I think it clearly should apply.
Hope this helps.
The relevant information does help. (I find the issue from a question about
behavior of "string s(false);", and this link
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17501942/false-implicitly-convert-to-null-pointer>
.)

However something is a bit different here. I want to know whether this is
intended by the committee.

I've also heard about GCC's policy from Jonathan Wakely in another issue in
the past. For an implementation, it's plausible. But for the text in the
standard, it seems to be somewhat unnatural: which document defines a
specific dialect of the language? And do we need DR reports at hand to
answer the question in general?
--
k_satoda
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-discussion+***@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-***@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-discussion/.
Loading...