220 6307 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Should std::addressof be constexpr? Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:35:21 +0200 Lines: 104 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <54860d00-a8cc-44ee-99f8-da44c700f5d9@isocpp.org> <4f907a54-0f72-4c61-af34-88a19f03f069@isocpp.org> <6c50e284-e495-4f45-8fe1-8661e36a3b2d@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6251b07d531904e5e60c0f X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1378676121 6930 80.91.229.3 (8 Sep 2013 21:35:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:35:21 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCT7RVFA4QORBGO3WOIQKGQEVMXEDZQ@isocpp.org Sun Sep 08 23:35:23 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-we0-f200.google.com ([74.125.82.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VImdf-0004MW-8y for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 23:35:23 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f200.google.com with SMTP id u56sf3882610wes.7 for ; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:35:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=gStA2o0w66rFIfQRPaTd0sYXd/OpCu1jGBvOcQpp/pM=; b=aJ0Asqhg1qEoCU7o4UrI77uVUOw+XpGrVcMj6agqGivNCw9t9LiP+vyoeTG9ImChax Ns4LVjnT2TiW9RW1bt6QskIBjKiuZIM2p8XKWNpyqvDXI9RlhYf3sZ3nAgtSQUUfdVfi dS1vXJ1olJhmS8Y6xFwID5rcE+js+OUXavfP9P8ktSX6PdZPD4iefrBrCutmOFrrYL7X vagagEG5YLRS6xcO6nE90RORmS3DZdIauSJAca4csluOk27hZ1a1Ul2JayR67qqxDba1 j+DB7kXwFVnJy0OiA9NuFfTVoEb85gdKQiEAkWBlD3KCR91MC3ROgJ4aZbIap98joAbA A4tw== X-Received: by 10.180.210.242 with SMTP id mx18mr2357673wic.6.1378676122406; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:35:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.77.135 with SMTP id s7ls548881wiw.28.canary; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.109.132 with SMTP id hs4mr2330946wib.46.1378676121710; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cr8si3293292wib.0.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of daniel.kruegler@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::234; Original-Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id u57so3639172wes.11 for ; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.160.240 with SMTP id xn16mr6094664wib.62.1378676121619; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.216.153.8 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6c50e284-e495-4f45-8fe1-8661e36a3b2d@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: daniel.kruegler@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of daniel.kruegler@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=daniel.kruegler@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:6307 Archived-At: --047d7b6251b07d531904e5e60c0f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 2013/9/8 Daryle Walker > >> >> Using reinterpret_cast is still banned for constexpr in C++14? Where, >> since it has to be indirect? (The huge list of actions that disqualify a >> function from being constexpr has been drastically reduced.) >> > > The constexpr list changed, but the general constant-expression list > hasn't (as much). > You are misreading the wording, please check back what I quote from 5.19 in my last reply - this has nothing to do with constexpr, it is a restriction about *every* /core constant expression/. Note also that a (general) /constant expression/ *is* a special form of a core constant expression, so it applies for these as well. > > >> I would even go so far and suggest to submit a library issue regarding >>> this problem. >>> >> >> Done. >> > > Maybe one of you experts should write a better defect report.... > I don't see a reason why - could you please elaborate? - Daniel -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. --047d7b6251b07d531904e5e60c0f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= 2013/9/8 Daryle Walker <darylew@gmail.com>
=A0
Using reinterpret_cast is still banned for constexpr in C++14?=A0 Where, since it=A0has to be indirect= ?=A0 (The=A0huge list of actions that disqualify a function from being constexpr has been drastically redu= ced.)=A0=A0
=A0
The constexpr list changed, but the general constant-expressio= n list hasn't (as much).

Yo= u are misreading the wording, please check back what I quote from 5.19 in m= y last reply - this has nothing to do with constexpr, it is a restriction a= bout *every* /core constant expression/. Note also that a (general) /consta= nt expression/ *is* a special form of a core constant expression, so it app= lies for these as well.
=A0
=A0
I would even go so far and suggest to submit a library issue regarding this= problem.
=A0
Done.
=A0
Maybe one of you experts shoul= d write a better defect report....=A0

I don't see a reason why - coul= d you please elaborate?

- Daniel

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
--047d7b6251b07d531904e5e60c0f-- .