OK.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/05/16 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>> But DR 1658 says that B::B is *not* deleted (because A is not a
>> potentially constructed subobject). Implementing that might be
>> simpler than trying to have a deleted
On 10/05/16 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
But DR 1658 says that B::B is *not* deleted (because A is not a
potentially constructed subobject). Implementing that might be
simpler than trying to have a deleted complete and non-deleted base
constructor variant.
Always better to read the actual DR
On 10/05/16 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
But DR 1658 says that B::B is *not* deleted (because A is not a
potentially constructed subobject).
oo, I'd not noticed that. It certainly might make things much simpler.
Essentially a check for ABSTRACT_TYPE_P somewhere in that code.
nathan
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> PR 66443 concerns C++14 DR1611. It is now permitted to use the base-ctor of
> an abstract class whos complete ctor is deleted because of a virtual base
> issue. Specifically, given
>
> class A {
> A (int);
> // no
PR 66443 concerns C++14 DR1611. It is now permitted to use the base-ctor of an
abstract class whos complete ctor is deleted because of a virtual base issue.
Specifically, given
class A {
A (int);
// no default ctor in C++14
};
class B : virtual A {
virtual void Foo () = 0; // abstract