Re: [lmi] constexpr conversion functions

[Greg Chicares]

On 8/1/22 15:59, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 15:31:25 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
> wrote:
[...]
> GC> Let me put that question in a different way: if I were to report this as
> GC> a defect,
> 
>  Sorry, but what exactly would you report as a defect? Surely a compiler
> can't possibly propose adding a constexpr to a function without a
> definition and what else could/would you expect? I feel like I'm missing a
> step here, sorry in advance if I just overlooked something, but could you
> please explain again what do you think the defect is?

I had thought that they should require 'constexpr' on struct ambiguator's
conversion-operator declarations. However, when I tried to marshal a case
for such a requirement, I was unable to convince myself that the language
requires 'constexpr' there.