Actually, forgive me if I'm reading this incorrectly, but I'm only seeing a change for block-scope function declarations in the 2025-11-06 proposed resolution, which is listed as superseded. And I'm not seeing anything in the approved 2026-01-09 resolution pertaining to block-scope function declarations.

Are they maybe touched on indirectly/implicitly? My standardese might be lacking in that regard.

Thanks

On Thursday, April 2nd, 2026 at 10:59 AM, Keenan Horrigan <friedkeenan_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Ah, shame. Thanks for the answer, though.
>
> On Thursday, April 2nd, 2026 at 4:03 AM, Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 4/2/26 05:48, Keenan Horrigan via Std-Discussion wrote:
> > > On Clang you can even have
> > >
> > > template<typename T>
> > > consteval auto get_function() {
> > > void function(T);
> > >
> > > return ^^function;
> > > }
> > >
> > > And then get at the overload generically like 'get_function<int>()'. GCC currently runs into an internal error with that, though: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124756
> > >
> > > But basically, I was wondering if this is valid behavior or not. It would be potentially useful, since I'm not aware of another way to get a reflection of a particular overload from an overload set. But I'm unsure if I could rely on this behavior.
> >
> > EWG decided to make it ill-formed to apply the reflection operator to block-scope
> > extern declarations; see CWG 3065.
> >
> > https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/3065.html
> >
> > Jens
> >