This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 Core Issues List revision 115e. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official list.
2024-11-11
[Moved to DR at the May, 2015 meeting.]
An example like
typedef int T; typedef const T CT; void blah2(T *a) { a->CT::~T(); }
is ill-formed, because _N4778_.7.6.1.4 [expr.pseudo] paragraph 2 requires that the two type-names in the qualified-id be the same type. The corresponding case for a real destructor, however, is allowed because of the provision in 11.3 [class.name] paragraph 5 ignoring cv-qualifiers in a typedef-name referring to a class type. The specification for pseudo-destructors should be adjusted accordingly.
Proposed resolution (November, 2014):
Change _N4778_.7.6.1.4 [expr.pseudo] paragraph 2 as follows:
...The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type. Furthermore, the two type-names in a pseudo-destructor-name of the form
nested-name-specifieropt type-name :: ~ type-name
shall designate the same scalar type (ignoring cv-qualification).