[class.static.mfct] Strike redundant normative wording #3965
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
jensmaurer
reviewed
Oct 18, 2020
| A static member function cannot be declared \tcode{virtual}\iref{dcl.fct.spec}. | ||
| There cannot be a static and a non-static member function with | ||
| the same name, parameter-type-list, and trailing \grammarterm{requires-clause}\iref{over.load}. | ||
| A static member function cannot not be declared \tcode{const}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Uh, this has a "cannot not" bad phrasing. This has been merged already; could you post a follow-up pull request, please?
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
All of the normative wording here is redundant: the overloading rule is specified in [over.load], the cv-qualifier-seq rule in [dcl.fct], and the virtual rule in [dcl.fct.spec].
I added the trailing requires-clause rule for overloading, and also changed "shall" to "cannot" since it shouldn't be used within informative wording.
It seems that we ran out of normative wording in this sub clause with this change, so perhaps more drastic measures should be taken (eventually).