From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-19 10:57:06
From: "Darin Adler" <darin_at_[hidden]>
> on 9/19/01 5:12 AM, Peter Dimov at pdimov_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > Your analysis is incorrect, I believe. A reference binding doesn't count
> > an implicit conversion.
> Why do you say that a reference binding doesn't count as an implicit
> conversion? I've read the standard carefully, and it seems clear to me
> it does. Paragraph 4p3 seems to address this specifically. Can you quote
> chapter and verse that shows that a reference binding is not an implicit
I'll try. 4p3 doesn't apply when e is already of type T. In this case the
reference is bound directly to the argument (8.5.3/5.) See also
This is still not the whole story as far as 184.108.40.206 is concerned since even
if we accept that the deduction mimics a function call, it does not specify
whether the synthesized argument expressions denote an lvalue or an rvalue.
I think that the intent of 220.127.116.11 is to use argument deduction as in a
function call, with lvalues as expressions.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk