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.
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
The permissible types in [over.match.conv] should not be reference types #4761
Comments
I think the phrasing "convert a type to another type" has a deeper problem. So, a standard conversion sequence converts an expression to a type. Attempting to convert a type to a type is ill-defined. |
Since we're talking about conversion functions here, one approach is to just say that the expression being converted is a call to the conversion function (so that [expr.call]/14, the "inverse" of As for "possibly trivial", [conv.qual]/3 doesn't actually require that |
I think, from |
It won't: as discussed there, the sequence formation process doesn't use the vacuous qualification conversion because it doesn't need to do so. Here, we explicitly ask whether it's possible to do so, and for the same type it is. If we think it's clearer to exclude that case in [conv.qual] and then say " Incidentally, the [over.ics.rank]/3.2.5 cited there also discusses converting a type to a type (albeit via a specific kind of conversion). |
If we merely according to the definition of the qualification conversion, convert It seems not only [over.ics.rank]/3.2.5 but also somewhere in the standard use that possibly wrong utterance. |
This should also apply to [over.match.ref]
|
Is that reference to type
T
considered the permissible type here? It's probably not, if it were, it will be conflicted with [over.match.funcs#general-7]. From the perspective of conversion sequence, an argument of reference type should be first adjusted to the referenced type(T
) as per [expr#type-1] prior to any further analysis. Hence, it is arguably said that fromT
toT
satisfies the above requirement. It's unclear here, maybe we should explicitly say thatIt seems that the wording
possibly trivial
is newly introduced, Is that if we sayidentity conversion
is more clear?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: