[Boost-commit] svn:boost r45878 - in sandbox/committee/concepts/issues: . issues

From: dgregor_at_[hidden]
Date: 2008-05-28 16:20:37

Author: dgregor
Date: 2008-05-28 16:20:36 EDT (Wed, 28 May 2008)
New Revision: 45878
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/45878

Log:
Add issue from Daniel Kruegler regarding associated function specifiers
Added:
   sandbox/committee/concepts/issues/issues/issue31.xml   (contents, props changed)
Text files modified: 
   sandbox/committee/concepts/issues/section.data |     6 ++++++                                  
   1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

Added: sandbox/committee/concepts/issues/issues/issue31.xml
==============================================================================
--- (empty file)
+++ sandbox/committee/concepts/issues/issues/issue31.xml	2008-05-28 16:20:36 EDT (Wed, 28 May 2008)
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='iso-8859-1' standalone='no'?>
+<!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd" [ 
+  <!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
+] >
+
+<issue num="31" status="Open">
+<title>Which specifiers are legal for associated functions?</title>
+<section><sref ref="[concept.fct]"/></section>
+<submitter>Daniel Kruegler</submitter>
+<date>28 May 2008</date>
+
+<discussion>
+  <p>[concept.fct] describes some explicit exclusions for function
+  specifiers on associated functions, but can we conclude from this
+  that all other specifiers are feasible? Can we declare functions
+  as <code>constexpr</code>, <code>virtual</code>, and pure?</p>
+</discussion>
+
+<resolution>
+  <p>The <code>virtual</code> specifier doesn't make sense for
+  associated functions (especially now that one can adapt the syntax
+  of member functions a concept map), so it should be
+    banned. Syntactically, a <i>pure-specifier</i> cannot occur in an
+    associated function, so it need not be mentioned. Suggested
+  change to [concept.fct]p2:</p>
+
+  <blockquote>
+    An <i>associated-function</i> shall declare a function or function
+    template. If the <i>declarator-id</i> of the declaration is
+    a <i>qualified-id</i>, its <i>nested-name-specifier</i> shall name
+    a template parameter of the enclosing concept; the declaration
+    declares a member function or member function template. An
+    associated function shall not
+    be <code>extern</code>([dcl.stc]), <del><code>inline</code></del>
+    <ins>have any <i>function-specifier</i></ins>
+    ([dcl.fct.spec]), <ins>be</ins> explicitly-defaulted or deleted ([dcl.fct.def]),
+    or <ins>be</ins> a friend function ([class.friend]). An associated function
+    shall not contain an <i>exception-specification</i>
+    ([except.spec]).
+  </blockquote>
+</resolution>
+</issue>

Modified: sandbox/committee/concepts/issues/section.data
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/committee/concepts/issues/section.data	(original)
+++ sandbox/committee/concepts/issues/section.data	2008-05-28 16:20:36 EDT (Wed, 28 May 2008)
@@ -313,6 +313,12 @@
             14.8.2.4 [temp.deduct.partial]
             14.8.2.5 [temp.deduct.type]
         14.8.3 [temp.over]
+    14.9 [concept]
+        14.9.1 [concept.def]
+        14.9.1.1 [concept.fct]
+        14.9.1.2 [concept.assoc]
+        14.9.1.3 [concept.req]
+        14.9.1.4 [concept.axiom]
 15 [except]
     15.1 [except.throw]
     15.2 [except.ctor]