Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [operators] The future of Boost.Operators
From: Andrew Ho (helloworld922_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-25 01:24:43

> 1) Please don't top-post.

Oops, my bad. Mail client/user fail.

> 3) I suspect if you did T& x = f() + g(), where f() and g() are rvalues,
> you'd be in trouble.

I take it you have:

T&& f();
T&& g():

correct? This does indeed fail, but this will fail using either r-value refs
or just return by value operator overloading. In fact, this fails for me
even if I tried:

T x = f() + g();

In all cases, the temporary destructor was being called as a result of f()
or g() returning, not a result of operator overloading definition or type of

Changing the definitions to:

T f();
T g();

and both operator overloading implementations (r-value refs or return by
value) succeeds. I don't quite understand why the r-value refs operator
overloads are able to extend the lifetime of the rvalues even though the
function return rvalues don't have their lifetimes extended.

Again, I'm not sure if there is some VS2012 specific behavior going on.

> 2) I think my responses below still apply.

Are you referring to using a user-accessible macro switch, or the problems
associated with using the 4-overloads?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at