Jens, can we have a core issue for this, please?

On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 12:27 PM Brian Bi <bbi5291_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> It seems we've just discovered the reason why the pre-CWG2801 wording was
> the way it was. Sigh.
>
> We should probably
>
> - restore the old wording,
> - then change the part that says "cv1 shall be the same
> cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than, cv2" to "cv1 T1
> shall be reference-compatible with cv2 T2". I think that fixes the
> original issue.
> - then, add a note so that in a few years we don't forget why this
> wording is here.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 11:55 AM Ell via Std-Discussion <
> std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> AFAICT, after the changes from CWG 2801, none of the bullets in
>> [dcl.init.ref]/5 allow initializing a (const/rv) reference from a
>> similarly-typed bit field. I'm pretty sure that wasn't intended.
>> --
>> Std-Discussion mailing list
>> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion
>>
>
>
> --
> *Brian Bi*
>

-- 
*Brian Bi*