🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45sl3a$coc@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.sun.com
(Steve Clamage) writes:

|> damian@molly.cs.monash.edu.au (Damian Conway) writes:

|> >jason@cygnus.com (Jason Merrill) and other cogniscenti write:

|> >>> | According to the standard, are the two lines of the main
|> >>> | equivalent ? My Opinion is yes

|> >>No.

|> >Then is it possible to set up a class X wherein:

|> >	X x(1);
|> >and
|> >	X x = 1;

|> >behave differently?

|> Yes.  Silly example: Write a message to the terminal from the copy
|> constructor. If the copy is optimized away, you won't see the message.

I don't think that is what he was looking for.  As far as I know,
there is no way of *ensuring* that the above will both be legal, but
have garanteed different run-time semantics.

It is trival to make the first legal, and the second illegal, which, I
suppose is a way of making them behave differently at compile time.
--

James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]