🚀 go-pugleaf

I've read through [conv](4) and [dcl.init.ref](6,7) of the September
WP and convinced myself that the following code is conformant:

	char c = 'a';
	double d = 3.14159;

	char const& cr = d;	// binds cr to a temporary holding '\x03'
	double const& dr = c;	// binds dr to a temporary holding 97.0

This seems wrong to me.  I'm curious about the history and reasoning
behind these rules (particularly [dcl.init.ref](7)).  Why is the type
checking system so lax here?

I can understand why implicit conversions are desirable among builtin
arithmetic types for rvalues, but not for lvalues.  C++ won't let me
apply implicit conversions when seating a pointer type, e.g.,

	char c = 'a';
	double d = 3.14159;

	char const* cp = &d;	// error
	double const* dp = &c;	// error

I would expect the rules for implicit conversions of references
(lvalues) to match the more restrictive rules for pointers, rather
than the less restrictive rules for rvalues.
---
[ 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. ]