[class.temporary]/3 A deleted destructor is meaninglessly allowed
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
cwg
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
If a parameter type (that is an object type) or the return type of a function has a deleted destructor, the function definition or the return statement is ill-formed respectively (the latter case is banned via CWG 2426). So should we just say "the destructor of X is trivial"?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Read the issue's discussion alongside the linked CWG 2426 resolution, focusing on the rules for deleted destructors in parameter and return types. Determine whether the standard wording should refer to a trivial destructor, and confirm the resulting wording is consistent with those cases.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100