The July 16 draft of the Standard Library Extensions TR1 seems to say (in
[tr.meta.req]) that is_pod<void>::value should evaluate to true. Is void
really a POD type according to the standard?

Also it says in [tr.meta.unary.prop] that the template argument of is_pod<>
should be a complete type and, as I understand it, void is not a complete
type.


Andrew Browne


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

In article <RhfNc.1695$0D1.1336@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
 abrowne.cpp@invalid.invalid ("Andrew Browne") wrote:

> The July 16 draft of the Standard Library Extensions TR1 seems to say (in
> [tr.meta.req]) that is_pod<void>::value should evaluate to true. Is void
> really a POD type according to the standard?
>
> Also it says in [tr.meta.unary.prop] that the template argument of is_pod<>
> should be a complete type and, as I understand it, void is not a complete
> type.

I believe this is a mistake in the paper.  is_pod<void>::value == false.
Section 3.9 of the standard does not describe void as pod (or
vice-versa), and section 3.9 is what the type traits library was
originally based on.

Thanks for bringing this up.

-Howard

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]