rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr7xx.cpp:225
template <typename... T>
void f(int i = 0, T ...args) {}
void ff() { f(); }
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> Is this even supposed to compile? The only valid specializations of `f`
> require `T...` to be an empty pack, which violates
> [temp.res/8.3](https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/temp.res#8.3).
>
> The comment mentions [DR777](http://cwg-issue-browser.herokuapp.com/cwg777),
> but DR777 doesn't explain the circumstances under which its wording change
> matters. It //seems// only to apply to templates that are already ill-formed
> by temp.res/8.3.
Yeah, Richard made this point in
[[http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#2233|DR2233]],
and the wording was weakened to allow it, in a way that essentially makes the
earlier default arguments dead.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79800/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79800
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
