3 ms·
This topic was discussed in Lenexa at last week's C++ standards meeting, and the direction the core working group was thinking was that this should be ill-forme
by BudVVeezer 11y ago
This topic was discussed in Lenexa at last week's C++ standards meeting, and the direction the core working group was thinking was that this should be ill-formed, but is currently under specified. I would not rely on this ADL constexpr trick working for long (at least until CWG has had the chance to really pick apart the issue and change the wording to explicitly allow it).
- refp 11y agoI have been trying _very_ hard to get in contact with the folks that are discussing this approach; just preventing ADL constexpr tricks (through "friendly definitions") isn't enough. I am still waiting for the relevant parties to reply to my emails, but an article explaining "everything" (and the different approaches (about 3 at the current time, in addition to "friendly definitions") will be published soon. There is a lot of wording that has to be changed in order to prevent the semantics explained.
- BudVVeezer 11y agoI apologize for being imprecise. We're aware it's more than just ADL or constexpr, but we had insufficient time to address it at this meeting. It's definitely on our radar, we flagged it as a high priority item.
- refp 11y agoI just submitted a request to join the reflector where I know this is being discussed; nonetheless, information will be published on http://b.atch.se http://b.atch.se as soon as I have had time to write the contents of new posts.