Unsubscribe


Chinonso Ogbennia
________________________________
From: Std-Discussion <std-discussion-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Brian Bi via Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 3:00:37 PM
To: std-discussion_at_[hidden]rg <std-discussion_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Brian Bi <bbi5291_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-discussion] CWG 2801 and bit fields

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

On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 12:27 PM Brian Bi <bbi5291_at_[hidden]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto:Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]>
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion


--
Brian Bi


--
Brian Bi