On 10/12/2010 08:45 AM, Daniel Wallin wrote: > int() is a integral constant expression and the above code is well > formed in C++98, and I think it's meant to be in C++0x as well. There > isn't really an ambiguity here because base-type must be an integral > type, which of course X() can never satisfy. If we treat everything as > a type-id the case Doug gave above is ill formed. >
According to 8.2/2, "... any construct that could possibly be a type-id in its syntatic context, shall be considered a type-id." This rule applies even when the result is ill-formed, such as with sizeof(int()). Sean _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
