This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of WP status.

### 2960. [fund.ts.v3] `nonesuch` is insufficiently useless

Section: 3.4 [fund.ts.v3::meta] Status: WP Submitter: Tim Song Opened: 2017-05-08 Last modified: 2021-02-27

Priority: 2

View all issues with WP status.

Discussion:

Addresses: fund.ts.v3

The definition of `std::experimental::nonesuch` (with a deleted default constructor, destructor, copy constructor, and copy assignment operator) means that it is an aggregate, which means that it can be initialized from `{}` in contexts where the availability of the destructor is not considered (e.g., overload resolution or a new-expression).

The deleted default constructor also has this effect standing alone, because it doesn't affect the formation of implicit conversion sequences (and hence overload resolution). The net result is ambiguities in situations like:

>     struct such {};
>     void f(const such&);
>     void f(const nonesuch&);
>     f({});

For a real-life example of such ambiguity, see GCC bug 79141, involving libstdc++'s internal `__nonesuch` type defined just like the one in the fundamentals TS.

I believe that `nonesuch` would be substantially more useful if the ICS from `{}` is gone. `nonesuch` should have no default constructor (rather than a deleted one), and it shouldn't be an aggregate.

[2017-11-20 Priority set to 2 after discussion on the reflector.]

Previous resolution [SUPERSEDED]:

> This wording is relative to N4617.

> 1. Edit 99 [fund.ts.v3::meta.type.synop] as indicated, moving the definition of `nonesuch` to 3.4.3 [fund.ts.v3::meta.detect]:

>    >     //3.4.3 [fund.ts.v3::meta.detect], Detection idiom
>    >     […]

>    >     struct nonesuch{
>    >       nonesuch() = delete;
>    >       ~nonesuch() = delete;
>    >       nonesuch(nonesuch const&) = delete;
>    >       void operator=(nonesuch const&) = delete;
>    >     };
>    >     […]

> 2. Insert at the beginning of 3.4.3 [fund.ts.v3::meta.detect] the following paragraphs:

>    > [Drafting note: The seemingly redundant statement about default and initializer-list constructors is intended to negate the usual leeway for implementations to declare additional member function signatures granted in 16.4.6.5 [member.functions]. — end drafting note]

>    >     struct nonesuch {
>    >       ~nonesuch() = delete;
>    >       nonesuch(nonesuch const&) = delete;
>    >       void operator=(nonesuch const&) = delete;
>    >     };

>    > > -?- `nonesuch` has no default constructor (C++14 §[class.ctor]) or initializer-list constructor (C++14 §[dcl.init.list]), and is not an aggregate (C++14 §[dcl.init.aggr]).

[2018-08-23 Batavia Issues processing]

Change C++14 references to C++17, and all the LFTS2 references to LFTS3

Status to Tentatively Ready

[2018-11, Adopted in San Diego]

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4617.

1. Edit 99 [fund.ts.v3::meta.type.synop] as indicated, moving the definition of `nonesuch` to 3.4.3 [fund.ts.v3::meta.detect]:

   >     //3.4.3 [fund.ts.v3::meta.detect], Detection idiom
   >     […]

   >     struct nonesuch{
   >       nonesuch() = delete;
   >       ~nonesuch() = delete;
   >       nonesuch(nonesuch const&) = delete;
   >       void operator=(nonesuch const&) = delete;
   >     };
   >     […]

2. Insert at the beginning of 3.4.3 [fund.ts.v3::meta.detect] the following paragraphs:

   > [Drafting note: The seemingly redundant statement about default and initializer-list constructors is intended to negate the usual leeway for implementations to declare additional member function signatures granted in 16.4.6.5 [member.functions]. — end drafting note]

   >     struct nonesuch {
   >       ~nonesuch() = delete;
   >       nonesuch(nonesuch const&) = delete;
   >       void operator=(nonesuch const&) = delete;
   >     };

   > > -?- `nonesuch` has no default constructor (C++17 §[class.ctor]) or initializer-list constructor (C++17 §[dcl.init.list]), and is not an aggregate (C++17 §[dcl.init.aggr]).