This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of New status.
4252. Are exposition-only classes considered specified for the purpose offinal
?
Section: 16.4.6.13 [derivation] Status: New Submitter: Jiang An Opened: 2025-04-28 Last modified: 2025-05-04
Priority: Not Prioritized
View all other issues in [derivation].
View all issues with New status.
Discussion:
Currently, iterator and sentinel types of several views are exposition-only in the standard wording, and none of them is specified to be final
. These types are arguably required to be non-final due to 16.4.6.13 [derivation] p4 because it's possible to say they are specified except for names.
join_view
's iterator final
for some reasons (https://reviews.llvm.org/D142811#inline-1383022). Perhaps we should clarify that the final
-ity of exposition-only class is unspecified.
Proposed resolution:
This wording is relative to N5008.
Modify 16.4.6.13 [derivation] as indicated:
-4- All types specified in the C++ standard library shall be non-
final
types unless otherwise specified. Exposition-only classes (16.3.3.2 [expos.only.entity]) are not considered specified for the purpose offinal
.
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