Subject: Re: [boost] [filesystem] windows/posix inconsistencies.
From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-02 14:51:06
On 02.02.2012, at 15:18, Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Thorsten Ottosen
> <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I guess with the new & (I don't know of any compilers that have implemented
>> it yet) feature we could have these overloads in path:
>> const string& string() const;
>> string string() const &&;
>> so when a temporary path object is returned from path::extension(), the
>> second overload is selected.
> Interesting! I'm clueless about that use of &&. Need to do some reading.
I'm pretty sure that's ill-formed. The first overload must be
const string& string() const &;
because you cannot overload solely based on "one version has a ref-qualifier, the other doesn't".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk