From: Rani Sharoni (rani_sharoni_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-11 04:51:03
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Rani Sharoni" <rani_sharoni_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> I think the actual problem is one of either interpretation of
>>> 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 temporary"
>>> 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.
I'm not sure that I understand your intention.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk