Akira Takahashi
David Bakin
Gennaro Prota
Hani Deek
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
Hyman Rosen
Jason Cobb
Jason McKesson
- Re: In value-initialization, why does a (unselected) user-provided or deleted default constructor prevent zero-init?
- Re: [temp.spec.general] ¶6 - "The usual access checking rules do not apply ..."
jim x
- Might be a vague wording about the worst conversion rule for list-initialization sequence.
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
Kazutoshi Satoda
- Re: Pointer-interconvertibility between a standard-layout non-empty class object and its empty base class subobject
- Pointer-interconvertibility between a standard-layout non-empty class object and its empty base class subobject
language.lawyer_at
Lénárd Szolnoki
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- Re: Why does overload resolution fail in this simple case?
- auto& NTTP and type equivalence
Peter Sommerlad (C++)
Shachar Shemesh
Tam S. B.
- Re: In value-initialization, why does a (unselected) user-provided or deleted default constructor prevent zero-init?
- In value-initialization, why does a (unselected) user-provided or deleted default constructor prevent zero-init?
- Disambiguation about constructor declaration seems underspecified (to say the least)