This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of CD1 status.
Section: 16.3.4 [numeric.limits] Status: CD1 Submitter: Martin Sebor Opened: 2006-02-19 Last modified: 2017-06-16
Priority: Not Prioritized
View other active issues in [numeric.limits].
View all other issues in [numeric.limits].
View all issues with CD1 status.
[limits], p2 requires implementations to provide specializations of the
numeric_limits template for each scalar type. While this
could be interepreted to include cv-qualified forms of such types such
an interepretation is not reflected in the synopsis of the
The absence of specializations of the template on cv-qualified forms
of fundamental types makes
numeric_limits difficult to
use in generic code where the constness (or volatility) of a type is
not always immediately apparent. In such contexts, the primary
template ends up being instantiated instead of the provided
specialization, typically yielding unexpected behavior.
Require that specializations of
cv-qualified fundamental types have the same semantics as those on the
unqualifed forms of the same types.
Add to the synopsis of the
immediately below the declaration of the primary template, the
template <class T> class numeric_limits<const T>; template <class T> class numeric_limits<volatile T>; template <class T> class numeric_limits<const volatile T>;
Add a new paragraph to the end of 16.3.4 [numeric.limits], with the following text:
-new-para- The value of each member of a
specialization on a cv-qualified T is equal to the value of the same
[ Portland: Martin will clarify that user-defined types get cv-specializations automatically. ]