C++: taking address of const object with non-const operator&

[Jason Merrill]

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On May 17, 2002, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:

>> Rather, we should always reject bad candidates for op&, op-> and
>> op,.

> I don't see the point of rejecting candidates for `op->'.  It's not
> like there would ever be a built-in operand that would match, so it
> appears to me that the extension is safe in this case.

Fair enough.  This patch is OK.

Jason