You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For the operators =, [], or ->, the set of non-member candidates is empty; otherwise, it includes the result of unqualified lookup for operator@ in the rewritten function call ([basic.lookup.unqual], [basic.lookup.argdep]), ignoring all member functions.
The wording "rewritten" is basically associated with "rewritten candidates". The use of it in the above bullet seems to make misleading. In the older version, the corresponding wording is that
The set of non-member candidates is the result of the unqualified lookup of operator@ in the context of the expression according to the usual rules for name lookup in unqualified function calls ([basic.lookup.argdep]) except that all member functions are ignored.
Presumably, the modification is concerned to make the lookup for it as if it is applied to a function call whose postfix expression is an unqualified-id. Could we say that to make the meaning unambiguous?
For the operators =, [], or ->, the set of non-member candidates is empty; otherwise, it includes the result of unqualified lookup for operator@ in the rewritten transformed non-member function call ([basic.lookup.unqual], [basic.lookup.argdep]), ignoring all member functions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The wording "rewritten" is basically associated with "rewritten candidates". The use of it in the above bullet seems to make misleading. In the older version, the corresponding wording is that
Presumably, the modification is concerned to make the lookup for it as if it is applied to a function call whose postfix expression is an unqualified-id. Could we say that to make the meaning unambiguous?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: