This looks valid by the draft C++11 standard, if we look at section 5.2.3
Explicit type conversion (functional notation) paragraph 2 says (emphasis mine):
The expression T(), where T is a simple-type-specifier or
typename-specifier for a non-array complete object type or the
(possibly cv-qualified) void type, creates a prvalue of the
specified type, whose value is that produced by value-initializing
(8.5) an object of type T; no initialization is done for the void()
case.[...]
the wording is pretty similar pre C++11 as well.
This okay in a constexpr even though section 7.1.5
paragraph 3
says:
The definition of a constexpr function shall satisfy the following
constraints:
and includes this bullet:
its return type shall be a literal type;
and void is not a literal in C++11 as per section 3.9
paragraph 10, but if we then look at paragraph 6 it gives an exception that fits this case, it says:
If the instantiated template specialization of a constexpr function
template or member function of a class template would fail to satisfy
the requirements for a constexpr function or constexpr constructor,
that specialization is not a constexpr function or constexpr
constructor. [ Note: If the function is a member function it will
still be const as described below. —end note ] If no specialization of
the template would yield a constexpr function or constexpr
constructor, the program is ill-formed; no diagnostic required.
As Casey noted in the C++14 draft standard void is a literal, this is section 3.9
Types paragraph 10 says:
A type is a literal type if it is:
and includes:
— void; or
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…