🚀 go-pugleaf

eddy@siemensrolm.com (eddy Gorsuch) writes:

>Is an explicit call to an object constructor (an unamed object) const or
>not? I have code like the following where I don't care about the parameter
>to X::f(), so I just created an unamed T(). I thought I had tried to compile
>this code and got errors about trying to pass a const object to a non const
>reference parameter. Thinking that the unamed T() counts as a temporary (and
>therefor const) object, I believed that the compiler was right. Now somebody
>tells me that the following code is legal. Is it?

>class T {
>  T();
>  ~T();
>}

>class X {
>  X();
>  ~X();
>  f(T& t);
>}

>int main() {
>  X x;
>  x.f(T());  // Compiler complained on this line
>}

Doesn't the statement violate the rule that a temporary may not be
used for a non-const reference parameter of a function?

[ 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://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
]