Re: returning lvalue in C vs C++
- From: "Phlip" <phlipcpp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:45:43 GMT
Ben C wrote:
It would be thing.operator=() but I see the point.
Sorry, no it wouldn't, you were right. It's x's operator= we'd be
calling.
That's why I said figuratively.
I vote against Comeau and for g++. (But I don't trust g++ on other language
restrictions!!)
--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
.
- References:
- returning lvalue in C vs C++
- From: Ben C
- Re: returning lvalue in C vs C++
- From: Phlip
- Re: returning lvalue in C vs C++
- From: Ben C
- Re: returning lvalue in C vs C++
- From: Ben C
- returning lvalue in C vs C++
- Prev by Date: Re: returning lvalue in C vs C++
- Next by Date: Re: Opinions on a good choice for application re-write
- Previous by thread: Re: returning lvalue in C vs C++
- Next by thread: Re: returning lvalue in C vs C++
- Index(es):