On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote: > On 02/08/2017 09:33 AM, Tim Song wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote:
>>> 'potentially constructed subobject' appears to be a term without >>> definition. >> >> [special]/5: >> >> For a class, its non-static data members, its non-virtual direct base >> classes, and, if the class is not abstract, its virtual base classes >> are called its potentially constructed subobjects. > > thanks. That suggests that this, pedantically, is not a defect. It's > certainly an unwelcome surprise though. Perhaps the defect is in the standard. Will you email core about it? Jason
