From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-29 07:36:00
On 9/26/05 6:16 AM, "Robert Kawulak" <kawulak_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The reason I was thinking so was "Exceptional C++" item 20 p.9 which says
> that postincrement operator should return a const value, from this I deduced
> that conversion operator should also. But as I mentioned, I didn't think of
> it a lot so I may be wrong ;-).
Actually, under my opinion/theory, NO function, member function, or operator
returns a const non-reference. That's includes the post-increment operator.
However, I don't have the "Exceptional C++" book, so I don't know the
author's reasoning for his opinion.
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk