C++ Logo

STD-PROPOSALS

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Fixing some initialization gotchas
From: Tony V E (tvaneerd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-22 15:54:49


On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:46 PM Maciej Cencora via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Yes.
>
> After all you are explicit about the return type of the function (you
> specified it in function definition), so why would you not want this to
> work? There is no possibility for amibiguity here.
>
> czw., 22 sie 2019 o 22:36 sdkrystian via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
>> So you propose that this should be well formed?
>>
>> struct S { explicit operator int() { return 42; } };
>>
>> int f()
>> {
>> return { S() };
>> }
>>
>>
Having explicit work here has been voted on by the committee in the past,
and LEWG strongly said No.

-- 
Be seeing you,
Tony


STD-PROPOSALS list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com

Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups