C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Fixing some initialization gotchas
From: Tony V E (tvaneerd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-22 18:05:21

I think there was a convincing examples from Howard Hinnant like

chrono::seconds f()
  if (condition)
    return i;


 return chrono::minutes(j);

Is that function correct?

Sent from my BlackBerry portable Babbage Device
From: Maciej Cencora
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:56 PM
To: Tony V E
Cc: sotrdg sotrdg via Std-Proposals
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Fixing some initialization gotchas

And what were LEWG arguments for saying no here?

czw., 22 sie 2019 o 22:55 Tony V E <tvaneerd@gmail.com> napisał(a):

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:46 PM Maciej Cencora via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

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@lists.isocpp.org> 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,

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

Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups