🚀 go-pugleaf

Various people explore various copy initialization scenarios and the rationale
for allowing optimization back to direct construction:

	[deleted]

I still haven't seen a convincing explanation (pace Steve) as to why the WP
differentiates so clearly between direct and copy initialization semantics 
when the real situation is (or appears to be) that direct initialization 
_may_ be used in all cases, at the discretion of the compiler.

Sure, leaving the compiler the freedom to optimize out unneeded temporaries
is probably a Good Thing, even at the expense of predictability, but why 
not simply word the description to reflect the fact that, when using _either_
the "()" or the "=" form of initialization, temporaries of various types
_may_ be generated (with the constraint that the direct initialization form
will not generate temporaries of the type being initialized)?

damian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
  who: Damian Conway                 email: damian@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
where: Dept. Computer Science        phone: +61-3-565-5184
       Monash University               fax: +61-3-565-5146
       Clayton 3168                  quote: "A pessimist is never disappointed.
"
       AUSTRALIA
---
[ 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. ]