🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Jul27.193701.6815@microsoft.com> jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes:

>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.

	True.  Perhaps the inclusion of warnings (and the ability to
	selectively turn them off) is what will differentiate vendor X's
	compiler from vendor Y's.  People could put this down on their
	requirements list when shopping for a compiler; if a vendor's
	compiler isn't robust, they could shop elsewhere.  Marketing by
	word-of-mouth will hopefully prod compiler vendors to include
	warning also.

>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?

	Hello?  Anybody on the comittee want to answer this?
-- 
	- Paul J. Lucas				University of Illinois	
	  AT&T Bell Laboratories		at Urbana-Champaign
	  Naperville, IL			pjl@cs.uiuc.edu