Fixes for 2020-02 CWG Poll 1 #3796
Conversation
definition of "transparently replaceable" and simplify the exposition a little.
| \item the original object is neither | ||
| a complete object that is const-qualified nor | ||
| a subobject of such an object, and | ||
| \item $o_1$ is not a complete const object, and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe the following is almost as brief and a more direct adaptation of the existing bullet:
| \item $o_1$ is not a complete const object, and | |
| \item the complete object of $o_1$ is not a const object, and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. The question is, do we want to check for a const complete object on every level of the upward recursion, or only when we reach the complete object? The latter seems simpler to me, but I don't feel at all strongly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My thinking on this is that it is easier to get this bullet out of the way by checking it first and then ignoring it during the recursion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assuming "the complete object of x" is x if x is a complete object, it feels that Hubert's formulation is a little clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's just a trade: with the HST wording, we have to do the "complete object of" search in every recursion round.
Improvements inspired by a comment from @hubert-reinterpretcast on #3782.