[dcl.fct.def.general] Non-templated functions cannot have a requires-clause CWG2831 #3936
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
|
I would prefer if we could inherit the rules for declarations into the function-definition case instead of re-stating the rules. (There are certainly other rules for requires-clause that apply to both definitions and only-declarations.) |
|
CWG meeting consensus, Nov 11: This is not editorial and requires a core issue. This is fixing a bug. |
tkoeppe
added
the
not-editorial
jensmaurer
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
CA378 intended to prohibited constraining non-templated functions. As a result, the following wording was changed in [dcl.decl] p4:
Consider a function-definition. It has neither an init-declarator nor a member-declarator, and the "a function definition must be a valid declaration" rule doesn't account for the requires-clause.
I think the cleanest way to fix this is to add a sentence to [dcl.fct.def.general] p3 explicitly prohibiting this rather than dancing around the "definition must be a valid declaration" rule as context would have to be accounted for.