On 12/5/23 23:23, waffl3x wrote:
Does CWG2834 effect this weird edge case?
2834 affects all partial ordering with explicit object member functions;
currently the working draft says that they get an additional fake object
parameter, which is clearly wrong.
I couldn't quite grasp the
standardese so I'm not really sure. These are a few cases from a test
that I finalized last night. I ran this by jwakely and he agreed that
the behavior as shown is correct by the standard. I'll also add that
this is also the current behavior of my patch.
template<typename T> concept Constrain = true;
inline constexpr int iobj_fn = 5;
inline constexpr int xobj_fn = 10;
struct S {
int f(Constrain auto) { return iobj_fn; };
int f(this S&&, auto) { return xobj_fn; };
int g(auto) { return iobj_fn; };
int g(this S&&, Constrain auto) { return xobj_fn; };
};
int main() {
S s{};
s.f (0) == iobj_fn;
Yes, the xobj fn isn't viable because it takes an rvalue ref.
static_cast<S&&>(s).f (0) == iobj_fn;
Yes, the functions look the same to partial ordering, so we compare
constraints and the iobj fn is more constrained.
s.g (0) == iobj_fn;
Yes, the xobj fn isn't viable.
static_cast<S&&>(s).g (0) == xobj_fn;
Yes, the xobj fn is more constrained.
Jason
