Andrei Alexandrescu <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #11 from Andrei Alexandrescu <> 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:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to