generalized lvalues -- patch outline

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Eric Botcazou wrote:

> It's not that dubious since most compilers seem to have it, at least in the 
> pointer case.  And no, please, don't say it's because they tried to play 
> catch-up with GCC, I would not believe you.
> 
> And, from the user's viewpoint, this kind of argument has no merit anyway.

One user's description of lvalue casts is "... there is absolutely zero 
point to them ... The whole extension is just braindamaged ... I bet 99% 
of the people on this list have no clue what the exact semantics of the 
above are." (Linus Torvalds in 
<http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/Dec/5431.html>).  I agree.  
(There may still be a case for the ObjC cases *only*, provided they can 
only be written in ObjC and ObjC++ and a different ObjC-specific tree code 
is used to represent them from the codes used for casts.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)