home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Eugene Lazutkin <eugene@int.com>
- Message-ID: <01BAEB16.3DF53D40@dino.int.com>
- X-Original-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:14:05 -0600
- Path: in1.uu.net!bounce-back
- Date: 26 Jan 96 04:53:37 GMT
- Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
- Organization: -
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: FW: FW: Inherent C++ problem?
- Encoding: 32 TEXT
- X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
- iQBFAgUBMQheb+EDnX0m9pzZAQGyugF/S7mrS4UcjmsbDqEv5RYOXEmSIQbn8VPa
- Idr+CiUANQAb+gEw6102WyCRfClKRlyb
- =ujiY
-
- ----------
- From: Max Motovilov[SMTP:max@int.com]
- Sent: Thursday, January 25, 1996 11:11 AM
- To: 'Eugene Lazutkin'
- Subject: RE: FW: Inherent C++ problem?
-
- > Here is part of the relevent section in the draft standard:
- >
- > 12.2 Temporary objects
- > While evaluating an expression, it might be necessary or convenient
- > for an implementation to generate temporary objects to hold values
- > resulting from the evaluation of the expression's subexpressions.
- > During this evaluation, precisely when such temporaries are
- > introduced is unspecified.
-
- Well, I guess it is exactly the "not explicit enough" thing, at least
- when related to the case I described:
-
- Foo foo()
- {
- return Foo( ...... );
- }
-
- Foo( ..... ) is a full expression rather than subexpression. So, is the
- implementation _required_ to instantiate _this_ temporary under the
- current standard?
-
- Regards,
- ...Max...
- ---
- [ 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. ]
-