Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Verbiage about compilation errors in the non-immediate context spammed out everywhere #272

Closed
ericniebler opened this issue Feb 12, 2014 · 2 comments
Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG.

Comments

@ericniebler
Copy link

We need to centralize the definition of "immediate context" wrt template instantiation so we can eliminate spammy verbiage like the following in the description of is_assignable:

Only the validity of
the immediate context of
the assignment expression
is considered. [ Note: The
compilation of the
expression can result in
side effects such as the
instantiation of class
template specializations
and function template
specializations, the
generation of
implicitly-defined
functions, and so on. Such
side effects are not in the
“immediate context” and
can result in the program
being ill-formed. —end
note ]

In addition to all the current places where "immediate context" is described in the current standard, similar wording can be found in proposals for SFINAE-friendly iterator_traits, common_type, and invocation_traits.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

General case of #445.

jensmaurer added a commit to jensmaurer/draft that referenced this issue Dec 13, 2016
Drop the duplicated notes explaining ill-formed specializations
in other than the immediate context.

Fixes cplusplus#445.
Fixes cplusplus#272.
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Dec 13, 2016
jensmaurer added a commit to jensmaurer/draft that referenced this issue Dec 14, 2016
Drop the duplicated notes explaining ill-formed specializations
in other than the immediate context.

Fixes cplusplus#445.
Fixes cplusplus#272.
jensmaurer added a commit to jensmaurer/draft that referenced this issue Dec 15, 2016
Drop the duplicated notes explaining ill-formed specializations
in other than the immediate context.

Fixes cplusplus#445.
Fixes cplusplus#272.
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. label Dec 15, 2016
@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed their assignment Dec 15, 2016
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

This is the subject of LWG 2290 "Top-level "SFINAE"-based constraints should get a separate definition in Clause 17".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants