From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-11-29 10:23:58
At 04:57 PM 11/28/99 -0500, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>I find it a little confusing that:
>single<UDT> constructing @unnamed@::UDT by-reference
>single<UDT&> constructing @unnamed@::UDT by-value
>single<const UDT&> constructing @unnamed@::UDT by-value
>I can see the logic, but my knee jerk reaction is that the last two
>passed by reference, not by value.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, that would cause a reference to a
reference, which is not allowed by the language rules. That was the
case that caused Steve Cleary to develop the empty_member constructor
argument workaround that eventually morphed into call_traits.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk