750. The current definition for is_convertible requires that the type be implicitly convertible, so explicit constructors are ignored.

Section: 23.15.6 [meta.rel] Status: Dup Submitter: Alisdair Meredith Opened: 2007-10-10 Last modified: 2016-02-10

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all other issues in [meta.rel].

View all issues with Dup status.

Duplicate of: 719

Discussion:

With the pending arrival of explicit conversion functions though, I'm wondering if we want an additional trait, is_explictly_convertible?

[ Bellevue: ]

Alisdair is considering preparing a paper listing a number of missing type traits, and feels that it might be useful to handle them all together rather than piecemeal. This would affect issue 719 and 750. These two issues should move to OPEN pending AM paper on type traits.

[ 2009-07 Frankfurt: ]

Duplicate of 719 (for our purposes).

[ Addressed in N2947. ]

Proposed resolution: