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
Except in a declaration of a constructor, destructor, or conversion function, at least one defining-type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier shall appear in a complete type-specifier-seq or a complete decl-specifier-seq.
Except the decl-specifier-seq in a declaration of a constructor, destructor, or conversion function, a complete decl-specifier-seq shall contain at least one defining-type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier, and a complete type-specifier-seq shall contain at least one type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier.
As a drive-by, the exception should only apply to the decl-specifier-seq of the conversion function, since the type-specifier-seq in its conversion-type-id should obey the rule; comprise at least a type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The proposed amendment still misses a rule such as "A complete defining-type-specifier-seq shall contain at least one defining-type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier."
[dcl.type.general] p3 says
The grammar type-specifier-seq is the sequence of type-specifier, which can never include a defining-type-specifier. A defining-type-specifier can be a type-specifer but not the way around; that is, defining-type-specifier is a wider component than type-specifer. As specified in https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62506440/why-a-conversion-function-declaration-does-not-require-at-least-one-defining-typ
The suggested resolution might be
As a drive-by, the exception should only apply to the decl-specifier-seq of the conversion function, since the type-specifier-seq in its conversion-type-id should obey the rule; comprise at least a type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: