This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of C++17 status.

### 2587. "Convertible to `bool`" requirement in `conjunction` and `disjunction`

Section: 20.15.9 [meta.logical] Status: C++17 Submitter: Tim Song Opened: 2016-01-18 Last modified: 2017-12-05

Priority: 3

View all other issues in [meta.logical].

View all issues with C++17 status.

Discussion:

The specification of `conjunction` and `disjunction` in 20.15.9 [meta.logical] p2 and p5 requires `Bi::value` to be convertible to `bool`, but nothing in the specification of the actual behavior of the templates, which instead uses the expressions `Bi::value == false` and `Bi::value != false` instead, actually requires this conversion.

If the intention of this requirement is to allow implementations to pass `Bi::value` directly to `std::conditional`, like the sample implementation in P0013R1:

>     template<class B1, class B2>
>     struct and_<B1, B2> : conditional_t<B1::value, B2, B1> { };

then it's insufficient in at least two ways:

1. Nothing in the specification requires the result of comparing `Bi::value` with `false` to be consistent with the result of the implicit conversion. This is similar to LWG 2114, though I don't think the `BooleanTestable` requirements in that issue's P/R covers `Bi::value == false` and `Bi::value != false`.

2. More importantly, the above implementation is ill-formed for, e.g., `std::conjunction<std::integral_constant<int, 2>, std::integral_constant<int, 4>>`, because converting 2 to `bool` is a narrowing conversion that is not allowed for non-type template arguments (see 7.7 [expr.const]/4). (Note that GCC currently doesn't diagnose this error at all, and Clang doesn't diagnose it inside system headers.) It's not clear whether such constructs are intended to be supported, but if they are not, the current wording doesn't prohibit it.

[2016-08-03 Chicago LWG]

Walter, Nevin, and Jason provide initial Proposed Resolution.

Previous resolution [SUPERSEDED]:

> This wording is relative to N4606.

> 1. Change 20.15.9 [meta.logical] as indicated:

>    >     template<class... B> struct conjunction : see below { };

>    > > […]

>    > > -3- The BaseCharacteristic of a specialization `conjunction<B1, ..., BN>` is the first type `Bi` in the list `true_type, B1, ..., BN` for which `Bi::value == false! bool(Bi::value)`, or if every `Bi::value != falsebool(Bi::value)`, the BaseCharacteristic is the last type in the list. […]

>    > > -4- For a specialization `conjunction<B1, ..., BN>`, if there is a template type argument `Bi` with `Bi::value == false! bool(Bi::value)`, then instantiating […]

>    >     template<class... B> struct disjunction : see below { };

>    > > […]

>    > > -6- The BaseCharacteristic of a specialization `disjunction<B1, ..., BN>` is the first type `Bi` in the list `false_type, B1, ..., BN` for which `Bi::value != falsebool(Bi::value)`, or if every `Bi::value == false! bool(Bi::value)`, the BaseCharacteristic is the last type in the list. […]

>    > > -7- For a specialization `disjunction<B1, ..., BN>`, if there is a template type argument `Bi` with `Bi::value != falsebool(Bi::value)`, then instantiating […]

>    >     template<class B> struct negation : bool_constant<!bool(B::value)> { };

>    > > -8- The class template negation forms the logical negation of its template type argument. The type `negation<B>` is a UnaryTypeTrait with a BaseCharacteristic of `bool_constant<!bool(B::value)>`.

[Dec 2017 - The resolution for this issue shipped in the C++17 standard; setting status to 'C++17']

Proposed resolution:

The resolution for this issue was combined with the resolution for LWG 2567, so 2567 resolves this issue here as well.