This thread has already beaten a dead horse enough that the horse came
back as a zombie and was re-killed, but I couldn't help but respond to
this part:
On 01/-10/-28163 01:59 PM, Adam Skutt wrote:
Code that relies on the identity of a temporary object is generally
incorrect. This is why C++ explicitly forbids taking the address
(identity) of temporaries.
Except that C++ *doesn't* really forbid taking the address of a
temporary, at least indirectly:
#include <iostream>
int const * address_of(int const & x) {
return &x;
}
int main() {
std::cout << address_of(1+2) << "\n";
}
That complies without warning with GCC 4.6 '-Wall -Wextra', MSVC 2010
'/W4', and Comeau's online front end, and I am pretty confident that the
above code is perfectly legal in terms of provoking undefined behavior
(in the technical C++ sense of "your program is now allowed to set your
cat on fire").
Evan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
