http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378
Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |schvei...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #7 from Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> 2010-03-04
04:33:04 PST ---
testing:
[ste...@steveslaptop ~]$ cat testit.c
int x;
int * foo()
{
return &(++x);
}
[ste...@steveslaptop ~]$ gcc -c testit.c
testit.c: In function ‘foo’:
testit.c:4: error: lvalue required as unary ‘&’ operand
[ste...@steveslaptop ~]$ g++ -c testit.c
[ste...@steveslaptop ~]$
So, C (at least in gcc) does not consider ++x an lvalue, C++ (g++) does.
This is consistent with what Walter says. Choosing one or the other is
arbitrarily right or wrong depending on what compatibility you wish to have.
I agree that defining ++x to be equivalent x+=1 for all types of x is bad, but
defining it that way for builtins is fine.
I don't see a huge benefit to having ++x return an lvalue. Why can't you
rewrite bump like so?
ref int bump(ref int x) { ++x; return x;}
This should work for all types of x.
In practice, I don't think using ++x as an lvalue comes up much.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
