The reference of a conversion function(template) with a deduced return type #4671
Comments
|
@jensmaurer It is a bit similar to #4811 but not completely. One is template function, the other is a function with place-holder return type. |
|
Agreed. The rationale for the conversion function template case is that the deduction that needs to happen here is part of name lookup. [class.member.lookup] p7 |
|
@jensmaurer So, I think it should be an individual issue that should be processed. After all, the deduction of a conversion function template occurs as a part of name lookup and that is deduced with the actual argument. Instead, the conversion function with the place-holder is directly deduced from its return statement. |
|
I'm saying the normative rule for the template case is in [class.member.lookup] p7. If you feel that's insufficient, please give more details. And fix the heading if this particular issue is not about deduced return types, but just about conversion function templates. |
|
@jensmaurer After further consideration, you're right. [class.member.lookup] p7 has clarified this. struct A {
template <class T> operator T*();
};
A a;
int* ip = a.operator int*();
|
In N4861, the relevant rule temp.mem#5 is:
After P1787, the above normative rule is radically changed to be a note
There's no normative rule based on to interpret why we should use
a.operator int*();to refer to the specialization. I also feel that this issue is similar with How to explicitly call a conversion function whose conversion-type-id contains a placeholder specifier that I have posted it to wmm@edg.com, which has became the issue 2493 that will be published on http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: