Steven Schveighoffer <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #7 from Steven Schveighoffer <> 2010-03-04 
04:33:04 PST ---

[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:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to