declare | dojo.declare optimized for node.js useage | Reflection library

std::vector and other containers (except std::array) are specified to have a copy constructor. This is not specified to be conditional on whether or not the element type is copyable. Only instantiation of the copy constructor's definition is forbidden if the element type is not copyable.

As a result std::is_copy_constructible_v on the container will always be true. There is no way to test whether an instantiation of a definition would be well-formed with a type trait.

It would be possible to specify that the copy constructor is not declared or excluded from overload resolution if the element type is not copyable. However, that would come with a trade-off which is explained in detail in this blog post: https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2020/02/05/vector-is-copyable-except-when-its-not/.

In short, if we want to be able to use the container with an incomplete type, e.g. recursively like

Google describe here how to solve

https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/6048248?hl=en

Add in manifest

You can follow this link for examples.

In short sealed classes gives you the control of which models, classes etc. that can implement or extend that class/interface.

Example from the link:

This is a peculiar language quirk - the scope resolution on the left, in int A::i, affects the lookup scope on the right, so that actually refers to the x member of A.

Either rename one of the variables, or specify the scope of the desired x explicitly:

For C. The program is valid. The only requirement that applies here is "strict aliasing rule" saying that the object can be accessed only via a l-value of a compatible type (+ a few exception described in 6.5p7).

The compatibility of structures/unions defined in separate translation units is defined in 6.2.7p1.

... two structure, union, or enumerated types declared in separate translation units are compatible if their tags and members satisfy the following requirements: If one is declared with a tag, the other shall be declared with the same tag. If both are completed anywhere within their respective translation units, then the following additional requirements apply: there shall be a one-to-one correspondence between their members such that each pair of corresponding members are declared with compatible types; if one member of the pair is declared with an alignment specifier, the other is declared with an equivalent alignment specifier; and if one member of the pair is declared with a name, the other is declared with the same name. For two structures, corresponding members shall be declared in the same order. For two structures or unions, corresponding bit-fields shall have the same widths. For two enumerations, corresponding members shall have the same values.

Therefore the structures are not compatible in the example.

However, it is not an issue because the f object is created and accessed via locally defined type. UB would be invoked if the object was created with Foo type defined in one translation unit and accessed via other Foo type in the other translation unit:

According to the C++17 standard (11.3.6 Default arguments)

9 A default argument is evaluated each time the function is called with no argument for the corresponding parameter. A parameter shall not appear as a potentially-evaluated expression in a default argument. Parameters of a function declared before a default argument are in scope and can hide namespace and class member name

It provides the following example:

The code shown is valid (all C++ Standard versions, I believe). The similar restrictions are all listed in [reserved.names]. Since read is not declared in the C++ standard library, nor in the C standard library, nor in older versions of the standard libraries, and is not otherwise listed there, it's fair game as a name in the global namespace.

So is it an implementation defect that it won't link with -static? (Not a "compiler bug" - the compiler piece of the toolchain is fine, and there's nothing forbidding a warning on valid code.) It does at least work with default settings (though because of how the GNU linker doesn't mind duplicated symbols in an unused object of a dynamic library), and one could argue that's all that's needed for Standard compliance.

We also have at [intro.compliance]/8

A conforming implementation may have extensions (including additional library functions), provided they do not alter the behavior of any well-formed program. Implementations are required to diagnose programs that use such extensions that are ill-formed according to this International Standard. Having done so, however, they can compile and execute such programs.

We can consider POSIX functions such an extension. This is intentionally vague on when or how such extensions are enabled. The g++ driver of the GCC toolset links a number of libraries by default, and we can consider that as adding not only the availability of non-standard #include headers but also adding additional translation units to the program. In theory, different arguments to the g++ driver might make it work without the underlying link step using libc.so. But good luck - one could argue it's a problem that there's no simple way to link only names from the C++ and C standard libraries without including other unreserved names.

(Does not altering a well-formed program even mean that an implementation extension can't use non-reserved names for the additional libraries? I hope not, but I could see a strict reading implying that.)

So I haven't claimed a definitive answer to the question, but the practical situation is unlikely to change, and a Standard Defect Report would in my opinion be more nit-picking than a useful clarification.

I guess it is used to make it an R-value, what makes it read-only in practice.

Example: One can write

auto v = std::vector{std::vector{}}; actually creates a std::vector because it uses std::vector copy constructor. It is interpreted by the compiler as: