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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk