This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: generalized lvalues
On Nov 17, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Nov 17, 2004, at 10:47 PM, Matt Austern wrote:
1. It broke valid C++ programs. If we overload a function on
constness, like foo(int&) and foo(const int&), then invoking it as
foo((int) x) is required to call the const version. Generalized
lvalues made us choose the latter.
If it broke it please file a bug and don't complain that we broke it.
No, no! Other way around. The fact that we used to have generalized
lvalues broke valid C++ programs, and getting rid of generalized
lvalues fixed that class of bugs. That's one of the reasons we got rid
of them.
That's what I was trying to say, anyway. I was trying to list all the
reasons I knew of why we got rid of generalized lvalues. I was not
trying to list reasons for bringing them back. My apologies if I was
unclear.
--Matt