-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
/
N3838.html
655 lines (563 loc) · 30 KB
/
N3838.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>C++ Standard Evolution Closed Issues List</title>
<style type="text/css">
p {text-align:justify}
li {text-align:justify}
blockquote.note
{
background-color:#E0E0E0;
padding-left: 15px;
padding-right: 15px;
padding-top: 1px;
padding-bottom: 1px;
}
ins {background-color:#A0FFA0}
del {background-color:#FFA0A0}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table>
<tr>
<td align="left">Doc. no.</td>
<td align="left">N3838</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Date:</td>
<td align="left">2014-01-16</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Project:</td>
<td align="left">Programming Language C++</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Reply to:</td>
<td align="left">Ville Voutilainen <<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>></td>
</tr>
</table>
<h1>C++ Standard Evolution Closed Issues List (Revision R05)</h1>
<p>Revised 2014-01-16 at 19:01:45 UTC</p>
<p>Reference ISO/IEC IS 14882:2003(E)</p>
<p>Also see:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="ewg-toc.html">Table of Contents</a> for all evolution issues.</li>
<li><a href="ewg-index.html">Index by Section</a> for all evolution issues.</li>
<li><a href="ewg-status.html">Index by Status</a> for all evolution issues.</li>
<li><a href="ewg-active.html">Evolution Active Issues List</a></li>
<li><a href="ewg-complete.html">Evolution Complete Issues List</a></li>
</ul>
<p>This document contains only evolution issues which have been closed
by the Evolution Working Group as duplicates or not defects. That is,
issues which have a status of <a href="ewg-active.html#Dup">Dup</a> or
<a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>. See the <a href="ewg-active.html">Evolution Active Issues List</a> active issues and more
information. See the <a href="ewg-complete.html">Evolution Complete Issues List</a> for issues considered
accepted extensions. The introductory material in that document also applies to
this document.</p>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li>R05: 2014-01-17 pre-Issaquah mailing<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>49 open issues, up by 3.</li>
<li>30 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>79 issues total, up by 3.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 3 New issues: <a href="ewg-active.html#77">77</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#78">78</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#79">79</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from New to Open: <a href="ewg-active.html#72">72</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Ready to Open: <a href="ewg-active.html#41">41</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R04:
<ul>
<li>R04: 2013-10-11 post-Chicago mailing<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>46 open issues, down by 9.</li>
<li>30 closed issues, up by 12.</li>
<li>76 issues total, up by 3.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 3 Open issues: <a href="ewg-active.html#74">74</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#75">75</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#76">76</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 4 issues from New to NAD: <a href="ewg-closed.html#12">12</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#68">68</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#69">69</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#73">73</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Open to NAD: <a href="ewg-closed.html#32">32</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#33">33</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 6 issues from New to Open: <a href="ewg-active.html#2">2</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#17">17</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#19">19</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#23">23</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#52">52</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#71">71</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 4 issues from Open to WP: <a href="ewg-complete.html#18">18</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#21">21</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#22">22</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#27">27</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Ready to WP: <a href="ewg-complete.html#3">3</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#20">20</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R03:
<ul>
<li>R03: 2013-08-27 pre-Chicago mailing<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>55 open issues, up by 7.</li>
<li>18 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>73 issues total, up by 7.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 7 New issues: <a href="ewg-active.html#67">67</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#68">68</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#69">69</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#70">70</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#71">71</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#72">72</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#73">73</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R02:
2013-05-06 post-Bristol mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>49 open issues, up by 2.</li>
<li>18 closed issues, up by 17.</li>
<li>67 issues total, up by 19.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 3 NAD issues: <a href="ewg-closed.html#53">53</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#54">54</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#55">55</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 6 New issues: <a href="ewg-active.html#49">49</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#50">50</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#51">51</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#52">52</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#59">59</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#65">65</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 7 Open issues: <a href="ewg-active.html#56">56</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#57">57</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#58">58</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#60">60</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#63">63</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#66">66</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#66">66</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 3 WP issues: <a href="ewg-complete.html#61">61</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#62">62</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#64">64</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 5 issues from New to NAD: <a href="ewg-closed.html#31">31</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#36">36</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#37">37</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#38">38</a>, <a href="ewg-closed.html#47">47</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 8 issues from New to Open: <a href="ewg-active.html#14">14</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#30">30</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#32">32</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#33">33</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#34">34</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#35">35</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#43">43</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#48">48</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 6 issues from New to Ready: <a href="ewg-active.html#40">40</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#41">41</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#42">42</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#44">44</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#45">45</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#46">46</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Open to WP: <a href="ewg-complete.html#16">16</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#25">25</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 4 issues from Ready to WP: <a href="ewg-complete.html#1">1</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#6">6</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#7">7</a>, <a href="ewg-complete.html#13">13</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R01:
2013-03-18 Pre-Bristol mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>47 open issues, up by 47.</li>
<li>1 closed issues, up by 1.</li>
<li>48 issues total, up by 48.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following NAD issue: <a href="ewg-closed.html#39">39</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 32 New issues: <a href="ewg-active.html#2">2</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#5">5</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#8">8</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#10">10</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#11">11</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#12">12</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#14">14</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#15">15</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#17">17</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#19">19</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#23">23</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#24">24</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#26">26</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#28">28</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#30">30</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#31">31</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#32">32</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#33">33</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#34">34</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#35">35</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#36">36</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#37">37</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#38">38</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#40">40</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#41">41</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#42">42</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#43">43</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#44">44</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#45">45</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#46">46</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#47">47</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#48">48</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 9 Open issues: <a href="ewg-active.html#4">4</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#9">9</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#16">16</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#18">18</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#21">21</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#22">22</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#25">25</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#27">27</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#29">29</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 6 Ready issues: <a href="ewg-active.html#1">1</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#3">3</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#6">6</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#7">7</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#13">13</a>, <a href="ewg-active.html#20">20</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Closed Issues</h2>
<hr>
<h3><a name="12"></a>12.
N3410 Rich Pointers with Dynamic and Static Introspection
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.9 [meta] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Dean Michael Berris <b>Opened:</b> 2012-09-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="ewg-index-open.html#meta">active issues</a> in [meta].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="ewg-index.html#meta">issues</a> in [meta].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3410.pdf">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3410.pdf</a>
<p>To be handled by the Reflection Study Group (SG7).</p>
<p>Discussed by SG7 in Chicago, SG7 doesn't think the paper is going
into the right direction and the paper author has acknowledged so.</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="31"></a>31.
[tiny] constexpr functions must work at runtime
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 5.19 [expr.const] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Dave Abrahams <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="ewg-index.html#expr.const">issues</a> in [expr.const].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
constexpr functions are crippled by the fact that they have to be valid
at runtime. Things that are tantalizingly close but you can't quite do
include returning a type that depends on the /value/ of a function
parameter:
<pre>
constexpr auto ptr_array(int N) -> int(*)[N]
{ ... }
</pre>
If we would allow for constexpr functions that can only be evaluated at
compile time, we'd be able to do compile-time computation in a much less
template-heavy way.
</p>
<p>
Bristol 2013: Gregor thought that wrt general direction, constexpr is specifically not to have a constexpr-only model, and this issue would go into the opposite direction. NAD.
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="32"></a>32.
[tiny] Templated constructor accidentally preferred over copy constructor
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 13 [over] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Nevin Liber <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
<pre>
struct Silly
{
template<class... Ts>
Silly(Ts&&...)
{}
};
int main()
{
Silly s;
Silly t(s); // Silly::Silly(Ts &&...) [Ts = <Silly &>]
const Silly u;
Silly v(u); // calls Silly::Silly(Silly const&)
}
</pre>
The problem is that users expect the copy constructor to be called in both situations.
Note: you do not need variadics for this; it made the example smaller. Also, this issue existed in C++03, but rarely happened in practice because templated parameters were usually declared const T&.
</p>
<p>
Bristol 2013: Sutton and Gregor proposed various work-arounds, like additional overloads and constraints. Stroustrup asked whether having a copying template have different semantics from a copy constructor isn't an error, and Gregor explained that tuples run into that issue and they have different semantics for the template. The submitter is encouraged to write a paper, and practical examples are desirable.
</p>
<p>
The EWG decided to close this issue as a NAD in Chicago 2013.
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="33"></a>33.
[tiny] contextual bool conversion from scoped enum
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 7.2 [dcl.enum] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Jeffrey Yasskin <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
In Beman's filesystem code, I found the following problem, which he
didn't see because he's been building with MSVC 10:
A scoped enum defined at
<p>
<a href="https://github.com/Beman/filesystem-proposal/blob/master/include/boost/filesystem/operations.hpp#L230">https://github.com/Beman/filesystem-proposal/blob/master/include/boost/filesystem/operations.hpp#L230</a>
</p>
is used like
<p>
if (opts & copy_options::skip_existing) ++ct;
</p>
at
<p>
<a href="https://github.com/Beman/filesystem-proposal/blob/master/src/operations.cpp#L773">https://github.com/Beman/filesystem-proposal/blob/master/src/operations.cpp#L773</a>.
</p>
This causes an error like:
<p>../../../libs/filesystem/src/operations.cpp:773:9: error: value of
type 'boost::filesystem::copy_options' is not contextually convertible
to 'bool'
</p>
I believe it makes sense to define a contextual conversion to bool for
certain scoped enumerations, but I don't see a way to do it. I do see
a way to overload & to return bool, but that seems to prevent using &
to remove bits from a value, which shouldn't always be prevented.
</p>
<p>
Bristol 2013: Stroustrup pointed out that the existing behavior is deliberately trying to avoid supporting anything like this, in order to play safe. He further explained that allowing member functions for scoped enums has been attempted but the attempts failed. Gregor pointed out that not all scoped enums have a zero value, so doing it generally is hard. Stroustrup said he would want to have member functions for enums. Yasskin said he's not interested in writing a paper. Other people are invited to do so.
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="36"></a>36.
[tiny] no way to say "prefer this implicit conversion over that"
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 12.3 [class.conv] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Jeffrey Yasskin <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-24 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
If a type has two implicit conversions, and I call a function with overloads for both target types, there's no way to disambiguate short of writing the conversion explicitly or adding another overload. It would be nice to be able to extend the partial order on conversions.
</p>
<p>
Bristol 2013: The group doesn't see this as something that we should pursue, and thinks it's a design error and users are advised just not to do this. NAD.
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="37"></a>37.
[tiny] Logical xor operator
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 5 [expr] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Alisdair Meredith <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-28 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
I have a low-priority issue for adding the (neglected) logical-xor operator, ^^.
This has traditionally been dismissed as un-necessary, as it is equivalent to boolean operator!=, and there is no short-circuiting benefit to justify adding it.
However, contextual conversions to 'bool' are handled specially for logical operators, and in that context it would be completing a hole in the language.
I wish I had a better example, but pulling from the standard library:
<pre>
function<void()> a;
function<void()> b;
assert(a != b); // does not compile
assert(a ^^ b); // would compile, and assert!
</pre>
</p>
<p>
Bristol 2013: EWG doesn't believe reopening this discussion, it's been tried previously and it's unlikely that a new round would lead to anything. NAD.
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="38"></a>38.
[tiny] Core issue 1542
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 5.17 [expr.ass] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Mike Miller <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
In Portland, CWG categorized a number of issues as "extension," which
I presume you
will automatically look at for potential EWG involvement once the new
revision of the
issues list is out. I did want to mention one issue for which we will
be resolving part
and referring the other part to EWG: issue 1542 raises the question of
whether the
narrowing rules make sense for a compound assignment, e.g.,
<pre>
char c;
c += {1};
</pre>
CWG addressed a similar issue (1078) for an ordinary assignment and
decided that,
although the narrowing error was annoying in that case, it wasn't
worth the effort to
change the language because the workaround was simply to add a cast. In this
case, however, there's no way to avoid the error (no place to put the
cast). I think we'd
be happy with a revision of the narrowing rules that addressed both
this case and the
one in 1078; maybe the answer is just "why would you use the { } form
in a case like
this anyway?"
</p>
The Core issue link <a href="http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#1542">here</a>.
<p>
In Bristol 2013: EWG thinks the answer _is_ just "why would you use the { } form in a case like this anyway?". NAD.
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="39"></a>39.
[tiny] local class and friendship
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 11.3 [class.friend] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Gabriel Dos Reis <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-10 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
When we went from C++98 to C++03 we made nested classes implicitly
friend of their enclosing classes. We seem to have missed doing the same
for local classes defined at member functions scopes.
</p>
Mike Miller explained:
<p>
Hmm. I think that's already covered by 11p2:
<pre>
A member of a class can also access all the names to which the class
has access. A local class of a member function may access the same
names that the member function itself may access.
</pre>
By the definition of "private" in 11p1, a nested class has access to the
private members of the containing class; a member function of the nested
class therefore also has access to the private members of the containing
class; a local class of such a member function has the same access as
the member function; and a member function of the local class has the
same access as the local class, the same access as the containing
member function, and the same access as the nested class.
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="47"></a>47.
[tiny] Fix the relation operators on standard templated types
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17 [library] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Nevin Liber <b>Opened:</b> 2013-02-05 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="ewg-index.html#library">issues</a> in [library].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
In C++11, all the containers, pair, tuple, etc. always have the relation operators defined for them (==, !=, <, >, <=, >=), even if the contained type does not have them; they just fail to compile if one tries to invoke them. It would be better if those operators were SFINAEed out, so that generic code can then detect it and apply alternate strategies.
<p>
A use case I've have for this is when holding stateless objects that don't normally have the relation operators defined for them.
</p>
</p>
<p>
Bristol 2013: NAD. The operators have no opportunity for substitution failure.
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="53"></a>53.
N3526 Uniform initialization for arrays and class aggregate types
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Michael Price <b>Opened:</b> 2013-01-21 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="ewg-index.html#dcl.init.aggr">issues</a> in [dcl.init.aggr].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
<a href="http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2013/n3526.html">http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2013/n3526.html</a>
</p>
<p>
Bristol 2013: Stroustrup thought that the proposal is too aggressive and removes structure, and thought that the existing limitations are deliberate. Stroustrup and Sutton also pointed out that there are existing matrix types that deduce the shape of the matrix from the initializers, and this change would break such existing code.
No recommendation to move forward, considered NAD.
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="54"></a>54.
N3746, N3553 Proposing a C++1Y Swap Operator
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 13.5 [over.oper] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Walter Brown <b>Opened:</b> 2013-03-13 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3746.pdf">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3746.pdf</a>
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2013/n3553.pdf">http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2013/n3553.pdf</a>
</p>
<p>
Bristol 2013:
<p>
Point d in "the basics": left operand is a modifiable lvalue expression and the right operand a modifiable glvalue. Why the asymmetry? JC: it's because the operator returns the lhs.
</p>
<p>
Bjarne: do we really need a new operator?
</p>
<p>
Matt: Maybe. swap() has annoying ADL problems.
</p>
<p>
Daveed: does it really solve them? The operator will still be found by ADL. Matt: maybe, since this would use an intrinsic in place of the general std::swap template.
</p>
<p>
Bjarne: But swap() isn't going away because of backward compatibility, so now we'll have swap() and operator:=:. "Probably a good idea if we had a time machine". Introducing a new operator, it has to be really central and helpful. If it got us out of our swap problem it might be good enough, but it isn't. Libraries aren't going to stop calling swap and if they did then all the specialized swap functions people have written wouldn't get invoked. Problems are real, but the benefits it would have (i.e. what problem it would actually solve) aren't sufficiently explained. Too likely that swap and :=: would coexist indefinitely and that all the problems of swap would persist.
</p>
<p>
General agreement that this is a real problem but that it's not clear why this would solve them. We will not proceed with this.
</p>
<p>
No recommendation to move forward, considered NAD.
</p>
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="55"></a>55.
N3578 Proposing the Rule of Five
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 12.8 [class.copy] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Walter Brown <b>Opened:</b> 2013-03-12 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="ewg-index.html#class.copy">issues</a> in [class.copy].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
<p>
<a href="http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2013/n3578.pdf">http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2013/n3578.pdf</a>
</p>
<p>
Bristol 2013: Considered NAD, too early for such a breaking change after
C++11, breaks valid programs that use C++11 semantics (defaulted destructor
outside class definition, otherwise generated members, used with various
smart pointer members).
</p>
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="68"></a>68.
[tiny] C++ DR about global placement array new
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 5.3.4 [expr.new] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Thomas Koeppe <b>Opened:</b> 2013-04-22 <b>Last modified:</b> 2014-01-16</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
Basically, I would like to file a Defect Report: The global array placement new, as described in C++11, 5.3.4/10-12, is unusable. The reason for this is that the standard allows the operator to consume an arbitrary amount of memory, which is impossible for the user to learn, and thus impossible to provide. The fix is to remove the ability for placement-new to require more size than required for the array itself to the allocation function.
</p>
<p>
Current wording, in 5.3.4/12 says:
<pre>
new(2,f) T[5] results in a call of operator new[](sizeof(T)*5+y,2,f)
</pre>
Here, x and y are non-negative unspecified values representing array allocation overhead; the result of the new-expression will be offset by this amount from the value returned by operator new[].
</p>
<p>
Unfortunately, the presence of "y" means that it is impossible to pass a usable address to placement-array-new:
<pre>
void * addr = std::malloc(?);
new (addr) T[10];
</pre>
</p>
<p>
In the above, it is impossible to know the required argument for malloc, since the placement-new can ask for sizeof(T) * 10 + y bytes for any y.
</p>
<p>
The fix would be to remove the possiblity of placement-new requiring more memory for arrays, i.e. insert into 5.3.4/10 something like:
<pre>
A new-expression passes the amount of space requested to the allocation
function as the first argument of type std::size_t. That argument shall
be no less than the size of the object being created; it may be greater
than the size of the object being created only if the object is an array
and the new-expression is a default new-expression.
</pre>
</p>
<p>
What do you think? I don't think the change could break anything, since nothing could be using placement-array-new at the moment, and it makes sense that a placement version doesn't require extra space, since the caller already knows the array size and has to perform destruction manually anyway.
</p>
<p> Mike Miller points out the following:
</p>
<p>
You're not the first one to notice a problem with this; see
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#476">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#476</a>
</p>
<p>
To summarize, CWG agreed that that's a problem but felt that the
resolution was more appropriately handled in EWG, since it requires
evaluations of the tradeoffs of various possible options to address it.
Your approach, for example, focuses on the placement operator new
provided by the library, which simply runs the constructor(s) on a
previously-allocated buffer. However, that's not the only use of the
placement new syntax, which can pass arbitrary arguments to
allocation functions that actually do allocate memory, and it's not
clear that none of those will need to add padding similar to the way
the standard allocation function does.
</p>
<p>
In Chicago 2013, EWG deemed this NAD. Remarks from the discussion:
"The problem is in trying to use array new to put an array into pre-existing storage. We don't need to use array new for that; just construct them."
and "You can find what padding was used after the fact, because new returns a pointer to the start of the first element of the array. But that can happen only after UB. "
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="69"></a>69.
[tiny] Returning a void expression from a constructor or destructor
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 6.6.3 [stmt.return] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Richard Smith <b>Opened:</b> 2013-07-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
A thread on std-discussion[1] has highlighted that
<pre>
return E;
</pre>
</p>
<p>
where E has type void is valid in a function with a return type of 'void' but not valid in a constructor or destructor. There is implementation variance here, and we have examples of code which very reasonably wants to use "return E;" in a constructor, from within the expansion of a macro, and fails on some compilers due to this rule. The inconsistency between "return;" and "return void();" seems extremely jarring here, and I'd like to propose that we treat this as a defect.
</p>
<p>
(I'm not suggesting that we treat constructors and destructors as having a return type of 'void', as was suggested on the thread on std-discussion, but I'm not opposed to it.)
</p>
<p>
[1] <a href="https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!topic/std-discussion/ehqGBMsswjk">https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!topic/std-discussion/ehqGBMsswjk</a>
</p>
<p>Discussed in Chicago 2013 (as the NB comment FI 6), no consensus
to make a change, NB comment rejected, the issue is NAD. Vandevoorde said this rubs him the wrong way, because this suggests that a constructor returns nothing even though that's not the case.</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="73"></a>73.
N3681 Auto and braced-init lists
</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] <b>Status:</b> <a href="ewg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>
<b>Submitter:</b> Ville Voutilainen <b>Opened:</b> 2013-05-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-10-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="ewg-index.html#dcl.spec.auto">issues</a> in [dcl.spec.auto].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="ewg-status.html#NAD">NAD</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
<a href="http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2013/n3681.html">http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2013/n3681.html</a>
</p>
<p>
Discussed in Chicago 2013 (as FI 3 NB comment), no consensus to change
(concerns about breaking existing code), the NB comment is rejected, the
issue is NAD.
</p>
</body>
</html>