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

[class.cdtor] Only objects of scalar type can be accessed #4527

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[class.cdtor] Only objects of scalar type can be accessed #4527

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

languagelawyer
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

jensmaurer
jensmaurer approved these changes Feb 26, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that's right, but @zygoloid should also comment.

zygoloid
zygoloid reviewed Mar 15, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@zygoloid zygoloid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is correct, but I think we're missing similar wording talking about accessing the object representation of the object.

The old wording -- in particular, the "the object or" part -- might have been read as covering that before, in some cases: an incautious reader might conclude that copying a union with a trivial copy special member results in an access of the value of the union object.

I think we want "the value of any of the object or its subobjects or any element of its object representation" in the first edit and "the value of the object or subobject thus obtained" in the second edit, though that seems to be straying out of editorial country.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Mar 15, 2021

Thanks, @zygoloid! Let's give this some more baking time, not for now.

@wg21bot wg21bot added the needs rebase The pull request needs a git rebase to resolve merge conflicts. label Jun 15, 2021
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jun 20, 2021

@languagelawyer: please see above discussion, and also rebase?

@languagelawyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tkoeppe If I understand it correctly, @zygoloid suggests that this can't be fixed editorially.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jun 22, 2021

@languagelawyer: could you make the proposed change regardless, and we can run this issue past CWG? If necessary we can file a core issue then, but maybe a group review will suffice.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe added the cwg Issue must be reviewed by CWG. label Jun 22, 2021
@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the needs rebase The pull request needs a git rebase to resolve merge conflicts. label Nov 4, 2021
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Put on CWG's agenda: https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21telecons2021/CoreWorkingGroup

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

@zygoloid zygoloid zygoloid left review comments

@jensmaurer jensmaurer jensmaurer approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
cwg Issue must be reviewed by CWG.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
5 participants
@languagelawyer @tkoeppe @jensmaurer @zygoloid @wg21bot