This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 Core Issues List revision 110b. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official list.

2023-01-15


524. Can function-notation calls to operator functions be dependent?

Section: 13.8.3  [temp.dep]     Status: CD1     Submitter: Daveed Vandevoorde     Date: 19 July 2005

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

The description of dependent function calls in 13.8.3 [temp.dep] paragraph 1 applies only to identifiers in postfix-notation function calls and to operator notation calls for operator functions:

In an expression of the form:

where the postfix-expression is an identifier, the identifier denotes a dependent name if and only if any of the expressions in the expression-list is a type-dependent expression (13.8.3.3 [temp.dep.expr]). If an operand of an operator is a type-dependent expression, the operator also denotes a dependent name.

It would appear from the related passage in 13.8.4.2 [temp.dep.candidate] paragraph 1 that the description of postfix-notation function calls should apply to all unqualified-ids that are not template-ids, including operator-function-ids, not just to identifiers:

For a function call that depends on a template parameter, if the function name is an unqualified-id but not a template-id, the candidate functions are found...

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

  1. Change 13.8.3 [temp.dep] paragraph 1 as indicated:

  2. ...In an expression of the form:

    where the postfix-expression is an identifier unqualified-id but not a template-id, the identifier unqualified-id denotes a dependent name if and only if any of the expressions in the expression-list is a type-dependent expression (13.8.3.3 [temp.dep.expr])...

  3. Change 13.8.4.2 [temp.dep.candidate] paragraph 1 as indicated:

  4. For a function call that depends on a template parameter, if the function name is an unqualified-id but not a template-id, or if the function is called using operator notation, the candidate functions are found using the usual lookup rules (6.5.3 [basic.lookup.unqual], 6.5.4 [basic.lookup.argdep]) except that...

(See also issue 561.)