From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 11:54:52
"Rani Sharoni" <rani_sharoni_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> I think the actual problem is one of either interpretation of 8.5.3/5
>> or overspecification in that very paragraph. If, instead of saying,
>> "A temporary of type ``cv1 T2'' [sic] is created, and a constructor
>> is called to copy the entire rvalue object into the temporary. The
>> reference is bound to the temporary or to a sub-object within the
>> It said:
>> "A temporary of type ``cv1 T2'' [sic] is constructed using direct
>> initialization from the rvalue object. The reference is bound to
>> the temporary or to a sub-object within the temporary"
>> we'd be home free.
> I'm not sure.
> When source and destinations un-cv types are the same or base/derived direct
> initialization and copy initialization are the same (per 8.5/14/4/2) and
> this fact was (viciously) exploited by the old auto_ptr.
Something's missing from that sentence to make it comprehensible.
It has the same grammatical structure as "When my hand is blue or my
hair is green and I was a fool", which is not a complete sentence.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk