http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3167
Andrei Alexandrescu <and...@metalanguage.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |and...@metalanguage.com --- Comment #11 from Andrei Alexandrescu <and...@metalanguage.com> 2010-01-29 12:27:07 PST --- (In reply to comment #10) > I'm going to mark this as invalid, as function return values should be > rvalues, > and rvalues cannot be references, even if the vagaries of the implementation > make that possible. > > The reason is "vagaries of the implementation", so it may work on one > implementation but not another. Currently, whether it (used to) work or not > also depended on the contents of the struct being returned. Why should we leave this to vagaries? An rvalue is not an lvalue, period. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------