[c++-concepts] Check function concept definitions

Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton@gmail.com
Mon Sep 29 15:46:00 GMT 2014


> Hmm, have we actually discussed this in core review?  I'm not seeing it on
> the wiki.  Constexpr started out this way too, and allowing static_assert
> was added pretty fast.  C++11 said
>
> its function-body shall be = delete, = default, or a compound-statement that
> contains only
> — null statements,
> — static_assert-declarations
> — typedef declarations and alias-declarations that do not define classes or
> enumerations,
> — using-declarations,
> — using-directives,
> — and exactly one return statement;
>
> Is there a reason we want to be more strict than this for concept functions?


I don't remember much controversy on that particular limitation in
either Rapperswil or the previous telecon review.

The main reason for the restriction is that concept definitions are
normalized into a single constraint-expression. And it's not obvious
how things like using declarations and static-assertions should be
interpreted within the constraint language.

That said, having a static_assert inside a concept kind of defeats the
purpose since it triggers a diagnostic when its condition isn't
satisfied. That's not very SFINAE friendly :)

Maybe the restriction can relaxed when we consider the TS for adoption in 17.

Andrew



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list