generalized lvalues

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, 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.

I believe you interpreted what he said backwards :)
I believe he means that the generalized lvalues made us get some valid C++ 
programs choose the wrong fnuction to call, and that removing the 
extension fixed that :)