From: Stephen C. Gilardi (squeegee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-06 10:44:37
> > The caveat about temporary smart pointer objects still applies. My rule is
> > "never create an unnamed temporary smart pointer." The non-const reference
> > idiom tries to enforce this rule... although I have another reason for
> > preferring pass by non-const reference:
>> void f(T arg);
> > T t;
> > // now t is unchanged, right?
>Wrong, of course. Usually, the declaration of f isn't visible near the call,
>so you can't assume much about what's changed. But this case could be seen
>as an argument for using the unnamed temporary... then there's no object
>hanging around with a confusing value.
I don't see how t's value could be changed in the above example.
Could you please explain?
It seems to me that t was passed by value. My understanding is that
an unnamed temporary of type T is constructed using T's copy
constructor and sent to the body of f. This leaves t completely
If my understanding is incorrect, I'll be very happy to learn what
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk