Unitialized dynamic reference

Thread View: comp.std.c++

4 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

4 total messages Started by Daniel R. Edelson Fri, 06 Nov 1992 22:50

#643

Author: Daniel R. Edelson
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 22:50

16 lines
823 bytes

The draft standard has the following to say about references:

``The declaraion of a reference must contain an initializer except
when the declaration contains an explicit extern specifier, is a
class member, declaration within a class declaration, or is the
declaration of an argument or return type.''

So, given that, is the following illegal?

	new (int&)

All the compilers I tried permitted it.

Thanks,
Daniel Edelson

Re: Unitialized dynamic reference

#645

Author: Brian McCauley
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 16:06

17 lines
1028 bytes

In article <1dessbINNn1b@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, daniel@cse.ucsc.edu (Daniel R. Edelson) writes:
> ... is the following illegal?
> 
> 	new (int&)
Yes the type of this expression is `int&*'. There is no such type!
(Because if you try to take the address of reference what you get is the
address of the thing referred to.)
 
> All the compilers I tried permitted it.
Get some better compilers - Borland 3.1 spotted the error.

    \\   ( )  NO BULLSHIT! from BAM (Brian McCauley)          
 .  _\\__[oo  ============
.__/  \\ /\@
.  l___\\     E-mail: B.A.McCauley@bham.ac.uk
 # ll  l\\ 
###LL  LL\\

Re: Unitialized dynamic reference

#646

Author: Daniel R. Edelson
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 17:29

17 lines
1230 bytes

In article <1992Nov7.160634.1@vax1.bham.ac.uk> mccauleyba@vax1.bham.ac.uk (Brian McCauley) writes:
>In article <1dessbINNn1b@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, daniel@cse.ucsc.edu (Daniel R. Edelson) writes:
>> ... is the following illegal?
>> 
>> 	new (int&)
>Yes the type of this expression is `int&*'. There is no such type!
>(Because if you try to take the address of reference what you get is the
>address of the thing referred to.)

This could conceivably be interpreted as returning the
address of the referent (just like taking the address
of a reference), though I don't think that's a
correct interpretation. My point is if this is clearly
illegal, some explicit mention should perhaps be made 
in the draft standard.

Daniel Edelson

Re: Unitialized dynamic reference

#652

Author: John MAX Skaller
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:31

23 lines
1373 bytes

In article <1dessbINNn1b@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> daniel@cse.ucsc.edu (Daniel R. Edelson) writes:
>
>The draft standard has the following to say about references:
>
>``The declaraion of a reference must contain an initializer except
>when the declaration contains an explicit extern specifier, is a
>class member, declaration within a class declaration, or is the
>declaration of an argument or return type.''
>
>So, given that, is the following illegal?
>
>	new (int&)
>
>All the compilers I tried permitted it.
>

	Wow, wonder what they allocated? IMHO: It does not make sense
to allocate a reference, only an object.
-- 
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
	Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads