Reword [over.ics.rank]/3.2.3 #1741
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The wording here is awkward. The intent is, I think, to prefer binding an rvalue to an rvalue reference than to an lvalue reference, but the phrase "to an rvalue" is attached to the rvalue reference part (to which it is redundant). Would be clearer to attach it to the lvalue reference part.
|
An rvalue reference can also bind to a function lvalue, so the first part of the change has normative impact. And I'm not comfortable making the assumption editorially that if one conversion sequence binds to an rvalue then the other conversion sequence does (with the diverse ways in which overload resolution is used, I'm not confident that's true in general). => We need CWG feedback on this. |
|
@brevzin: While you're waiting, feel free to rebase and fix the failing tests. |
jensmaurer
added
the
needs rebase
|
@brevzin: ping |
|
@brevzin: ping |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The wording here is awkward. The intent is, I think, to prefer binding an rvalue to an rvalue reference than to an lvalue reference, but the phrase "to an rvalue" is attached to the rvalue reference part (to which it is redundant). Would be clearer to attach it to the lvalue reference part.