On Mon, 06 May 2013 13:53:10 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/6/13 1:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This is a trimmed down example:
int &foo(int &val) { return val; }
What I read from you (and I could be wrong) is you are saying this is
not valid:
foo(foo(foo(1)));
Is that right?
No. I believe I was very specific about what I destroyed and in all
likelihood so do you. Probably at this point we've reached violent
agreement a couple of iterations back.
OK, I was confused (seriously, I was not playing devil's advocate here).
We are in agreement (at least at what should be possible).
Long story short: binding rvalues to ref is fraught with peril and must
be designed very carefully.
I think empirical proof from this newsgroup is pretty good evidence.
-Steve
