Skip to content

Conversation

@eisenwave
Copy link
Member

@eisenwave eisenwave commented Nov 9, 2025

Fixes #8456.
Partially fixes cplusplus/papers#2580
Fixes FI-4 (C++14 CD).
Also fixes cplusplus/papers#2409

Note that this PR also fixes an example in [class.conv.fct] that becomes clearly incorrect after CWG1670 is applied.

@eisenwave eisenwave requested a review from jensmaurer November 9, 2025 15:35
@eisenwave eisenwave added this to the post-2025-11 milestone Nov 9, 2025
@eisenwave eisenwave force-pushed the motions-2025-11-cwg-2b branch from 7955549 to c40f633 Compare November 9, 2025 15:39
@frederick-vs-ja

This comment was marked as resolved.

@eisenwave

This comment was marked as resolved.

@eisenwave
Copy link
Member Author

You know what, I'm just going to submit an LWG issue for this.

@Dani-Hub
Copy link
Member

We have now LWG 4468 for this.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Nov 10, 2025

Thanks, @Dani-Hub!

@t3nsor
Copy link
Contributor

t3nsor commented Nov 10, 2025

It seems to me that the entire paragraph "A conversion function template shall not have a deduced return type" should go away.

Technically, that might (?) actually be a normative change in that the current rule makes the template operator auto clearly ill-formed whereas if that rule is struck then it might be IFNDR under [temp.res.general], but there seems to be little value in having this special case.

@eisenwave
Copy link
Member Author

eisenwave commented Nov 10, 2025

It seems to me that the entire paragraph "A conversion function template shall not have a deduced return type" should go away.

I wouldn't be opposed, but that seems more like CWG issue material than a drive-by fix in this PR which applies the motions.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe changed the title P3921R0 issue 1670 CWG Poll 2b: P3921R0 issue 1670 Nov 15, 2025
@frederick-vs-ja

This comment was marked as resolved.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Dec 13, 2025

Is "Fixes FI-4 (C++14 CD)." correct?

@eisenwave
Copy link
Member Author

CWG1670 links to "N3690 comment FI 4".

I'm not 100% sure about the hyphenation rules here; perhaps it should be "FI 4".

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Dec 13, 2025

Right, yes, I was thinking the same. Indeed, it fixes a long-standing issue, though I guess not relevant to the C++14 CD record of response...

@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2025-11-cwg-2b branch from c40f633 to 1a315f5 Compare December 13, 2025 17:44
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit b4d627a into cplusplus:main Dec 13, 2025
2 checks passed
@jensmaurer jensmaurer changed the title CWG Poll 2b: P3921R0 issue 1670 [2025-11 CWG Motion 2b] P3921R0 Core Language Working Group 'ready' Issues for the November, 2025 meeting: issue 1670 Dec 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

5 participants