Re: Bug in gcc: assignment to non-lvalue

[Jonathan Adamczewski <jadamcze at utas dot edu dot au>]

Jonathan Wakely wrote:

> I believe Andrew's right and the strcpy case is valid, but you do have
> a point. I think this should be rejected:
>
> struct A { int i; };
> struct B { A get() { return A(); } };
>
> int main ()
> {
>     B b;
>     b.get().i = 0;
>     // int& error = b.get().i;
> }
>   

What about something like the following?

struct proxy { 
   T& t;
   proxy(T& t_) : t(t_) {}
   proxy& operator=(const T& r) { foo(t, r); return *this; }
};

struct B { proxy get() { return proxy(bar); } };

int main ()
{
   B b;
   b.get() = 0;
}


jonathan.