Is void{} legal or not?

梦想与她 提交于 2019-11-29 10:47:41

问题


This is a follow-up up of this question.
In the comments and in the answer it is said more than once that void{} is neither a valid type-id nor a valid expression.

That was fine, it made sense and that was all.

Then I came through [7.1.7.4.1/2] (placeholder type deduction) of the working draft.
There it is said that:

[...]
- for a non-discarded return statement that occurs in a function declared with a return type that contains a placeholder type, T is the declared return type and e is the operand of the return statement. If the return statement has no operand, then e is void{};
[...]

So, is void{} (conceptually) legal or not?
If it's acceptable as mentioned in the working draft (even though only as an - as if it's a - statement), it must be legal indeed. This means that decltype(void{}) should be valid as well, as an example.
Otherwise, should the working draft use void() instead of void{}?


Well, to be honest, I'm quite sure I'm not skilled enough to point out an error in the working draft, so the real question is: what 's wrong in my reasoning?
What's exactly the void{} mentioned in the bullet above and why it's a legal expression in this case?


回答1:


To me it sounds like someone messed up merging the previous standard with the new one.

Previously the standard said this: (C++14 N4140, 7.1.6.4.7 [dcl.spec.auto]):

When a [...] return statement occurs in a function declared with a return type that contains a placeholder type, the deduced return type or variable type is determined from the type of its initializer. In the case of a return with no operand, the initializer is considered to be void().

The newer standard allows for if constexpr statements, so the language needed to change to reflect that. if constexpr leads to the concept of a potentially discarded return statement (if the return is in the not-taken branch of a constexpr if, then it's discarded and the return type is inferred from other return statements, if any).

Probably the new wording should be something like:

for a non-discarded return statement that occurs in a function declared with a return type that contains a placeholder type, T is the declared return type and e is the operand of the return statement. If the return statement has no operand, then T is auto and the deduced return type is void




回答2:


Confirmed the bug. Already fixed.
Here is the discussion (pretty short to be honest).

So, the answer is - no, void{} is not legal.
It was a wording bug of the working draft.



来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39354065/is-void-legal-or-not

易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容,如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!