This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 Core Issues List revision 117b. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official list.
2025-08-11
1333. Omission of const in a defaulted copy constructorSection: 9.6.2 [dcl.fct.def.default] Status: CD3 Submitter: Daniel Krügler Date: 2011-06-21[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting; moved to DR at the October, 2012 meeting.]
Paragraph 1 of 9.6.2 [dcl.fct.def.default] allows an explicitly-defaulted copy constructor or copy assignment operator to have a parameter type that is a reference to non-const, even if the corresponding implicitly-declared function would have a reference to const. However, paragraph 2 says that a copy constructor or copy assignment operator that is defaulted on its first declaration, the parameter type must be exactly the same. Is there a good reason for the stricter rule for a function that is defaulted on its first declaration?
Proposed resolution (August, 2011):
Change 9.6.2 [dcl.fct.def.default] paragraph 2 as follows:
...If a function is explicitly defaulted on its first declaration,
...
in the case of a copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator, it shall have the same parameter type as if it had been implicitly declared.
Change 11.4.5.3 [class.copy.ctor] paragraph 12 as follows:
A copy/move constructor for class X is trivial if it is not user-provided , its declared parameter type is the same as if it had been implicitly declared, and if...
Change 11.4.5.3 [class.copy.ctor] paragraph 25 as follows:
A copy/move assignment operator for class X is trivial if it is not user-provided , its declared parameter type is the same as if it had been implicitly declared, and if...
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4