Bump

On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 3:00 PM Brian Bi <bbi5291_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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*
>

-- 
*Brian Bi*