<HTML>
<HEAD>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>
    CWG Issue 466</TITLE>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
  INS { text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold; background-color:#A0FFA0 }
  .INS { text-decoration:none; background-color:#D0FFD0 }
  DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color:#FFA0A0 }
  .DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color: #FFD0D0 }
  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    HTML { background-color:#202020; color:#f0f0f0; }
    A { color:#5bc0ff; }
    A:visited { color:#c6a8ff; }
    A:hover, a:focus { color:#afd7ff; }
    INS { background-color:#033a16; color:#aff5b4; }
    .INS { background-color: #033a16; }
    DEL { background-color:#67060c; color:#ffdcd7; }
    .DEL { background-color:#67060c; }
  }
  SPAN.cmnt { font-family:Times; font-style:italic }
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><EM>This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21
  Core Issues List revision 118b.
  See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official
  list.</EM></P>
<P>2025-09-28</P>
<HR>
<A NAME="466"></A><H4>466.
  
cv-qualifiers on pseudo-destructor type
</H4>
<B>Section: </B>_N4778_.7.6.1.4&#160; [<A href="https://wg21.link/expr.pseudo">expr.pseudo</A>]
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Status: </B>CD1
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Submitter: </B>Mark Mitchell
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Date: </B>18 Mar 2004<BR>


<P>[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]</P>

<P>_N4778_.7.6.1.4 [<A href="https://wg21.link/expr.pseudo#2">expr.pseudo</A>] paragraph 2 says both:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  The type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same
  as the object type.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
and also:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type
  designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is it?  "The same" or "the same up to cv-qualifiers"?  The
second sentence is more generous than the first.  Most compilers seem
to implement the less restrictive form, so I guess that's what I think
we should do.</P>

<P>See also issues <A HREF="305.html">305</A> and
<A HREF="399.html">399</A>.</P>

<P><B>Proposed resolution (October, 2005):</B></P>

<P>Change _N4778_.7.6.1.4 [<A href="https://wg21.link/expr.pseudo#2">expr.pseudo</A>] paragraph 2 as follows:</P>

<BLOCKQUOTE>

The left-hand side of the dot operator shall be of scalar type. The
left-hand side of the arrow operator shall be of pointer to scalar
type. This scalar type is the object type. <DEL>The type designated by the
<I>pseudo-destructor-name</I> shall be the same as the object
type.</DEL> <INS>The cv-unqualified versions of
the object type and of the type designated by the
<I>pseudo-destructor-name</I> shall be the same type.</INS> Furthermore,
the two <I>type-name</I>s in a <I>pseudo-destructor-name</I> of the
form

<UL>
<TT>::</TT><I><SUB>opt</SUB> nested-name-specifier<SUB>opt</SUB> type-name </I><TT>::~</TT><I> type-name</I>
</UL>

shall designate the same scalar type. <DEL>The cv-unqualified versions of
the object type and of the type designated by the
<I>pseudo-destructor-name</I> shall be the same type.</DEL>

</BLOCKQUOTE>

<BR><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
