I am wondering why void() is a prvalue of void but void{} does not exist...? See the following answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/37708167/293195
For example in the context:
template<typename R>
R foo(){
return R{};
}
Asked
Active
Viewed 327 times
7
-
4[Obligatory](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/323382/2069064). It's hard to know what you're looking for in an answer here. Because [P0146](http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0146r1.html) wasn't approved? Or because when added brace-initialization was added, nobody thought about `void`... or cares since. Or ...? – Barry Nov 12 '18 at 14:16
-
4Related [How much existing C++ code would break if void was actually defined as `struct void {};`](https://stackoverflow.com/q/53197340/1708801) – Shafik Yaghmour Nov 12 '18 at 14:20
-
1@Barry: there are a ton of language-design "why" questions which can be answered properly, in an objective manner. When someone puts a question, they don't know that the answer would be "god-knows-why", or "it's because
". Just an example, here's a "why" question, with a proper answer: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8911696/if-condition-with-nullable. By the same person who wrote that "obligatory" answer. And even, a "god-knows-why" is a better answer than a no answer. This way, at least, we know, that there's no particular reason for something (so it's not a design decision). – geza Nov 12 '18 at 15:02 -
@geza Are you suggesting that this is one of those language-design "why" questions that can be answered properly in an objective manner? If you're not suggesting this, then I don't understand the point of the comment. I'm just stating that I do not know how to answer this question because I do not believe there is a meaningful, objective answer to it. – Barry Nov 12 '18 at 15:38
-
@Barry: Okay then, maybe I've just misunderstand your intents. – geza Nov 12 '18 at 15:53
