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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[basic.life]/5 was overlooked during CWG2256 resolution? #2953

Closed
languagelawyer opened this issue Jul 4, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #2954
Closed

[basic.life]/5 was overlooked during CWG2256 resolution? #2953

languagelawyer opened this issue Jul 4, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #2954
Assignees
@jensmaurer

Comments

@languagelawyer
Copy link
Contributor

languagelawyer commented Jul 4, 2019 •
edited

[basic.life]/5 still says that

A program may end the lifetime of any object by reusing the storage which the object occupies or by explicitly calling the destructor for an object of a class type with a non-trivial destructor.

even though the requirement about non-triviality of a destructor was removed from [basic.life]/1 during CWG2256 resolution and now it says that

The lifetime of an object o of type T ends when:
— if T is a non-class type, the object is destroyed, or
— if T is a class type, the destructor call starts, or
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

CWG2051 is still in "drafting"; you're talking about CWG 2256.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer changed the title [basic.life]/5 was overlooked during CWG2051 resolution? [basic.life]/5 was overlooked during CWG2256 resolution? Jul 4, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Jul 4, 2019
@languagelawyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oops, yes, I meant CWG2256.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Jul 4, 2019
Merged
@languagelawyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

CWG2051 is still in "drafting"

I've thought it was merged in 573152d

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Right, sorry for the confusion. (I was looking at an older core issues list.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@jensmaurer jensmaurer

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

[basic.life] Lifetime of class objects is treated uniformly jensmaurer/draft
2 participants
@jensmaurer @languagelawyer