Re: [boost] Re: Re: Zero Unnecessary Temporary Objects: A Revolution

From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-13 12:41:53

>From: "Daniel Frey" <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]>

>>Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> | To me, it is something that I can read.
>>
>> Interesting.  So you can read a reference.  How?

>I knew it was going in the wrong direction :) I mean the sematic of
>"value" against the semantic of "object". I don't refer to the standard
>here, but to the meaning of these words in the natural language (of a
>C++ programmer :).

I think the discussion could be clearer if "lvalue" or "rvalue" is used,
instead of "value" and "object". An object is a value. See e.g. 3.10,
"Lvalues and rvalues".

>> | It's different from an "object", which is something you can change.

>An example: 42 is a value.

Yes, an rvalue.

>An 'int' which holds the value 42 is an
>"object", as you can modify it.

And that's an lvalue.

Regards,

Terje