Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #90Re: How do I... (regarding overloading)
From: Jim Adcock
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:37
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:37
15 lines
1356 bytes
1356 bytes
In article <1992Jul23.154922.26676@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> pjl@sparc11.cs.uiuc.edu (Paul Lucas) writes: | Why do they want to do that? If I want to call functions on | temporaries, that's my business (and I accept any consequences). | I think that compiler warnings are sufficient. Remember, if you say that warning are sufficient, then you are also saying that not having warnings is sufficient, because warning represent a compiler implementation, not a language specification. Errors are part of the language, warnings are implementation specific. Why would they not allow functions on temporaries? Beats me, but someone is proposing this. I don't know the details. Perhaps it relates to all the committee discussions about trying to invent special case rules for handling the lifetimes of temporaries? As opposed to handling the lifetimes of temporaries just like all other objects?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Jul27.193701.6815@microsoft.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jimadReferences:
<1992Jul21.232959.13540@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Jul23.012111.16784@microsoft.com> <1992Jul23.154922.26676@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jimad From: jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) Subject: Re: How do I... (regarding overloading) Message-ID: <1992Jul27.193701.6815@microsoft.com> Date: 27 Jul 92 19:37:01 GMT Organization: Microsoft Corporation References: <1992Jul21.232959.13540@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Jul23.012111.16784@microsoft.com> <1992Jul23.154922.26676@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> Distribution: usa Lines: 17