Is this documented behaviour?

[John Colvin]

On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 17:06:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 17:03:52 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> Sorry, I should have been more clear. It's the first case that 
>> seems weird to me.
>
> Why? '*aptr' is 'a' pretty much by definition of pointer 
> dereferencing.

To be honest, I wasn't expecting foo(*aptr) to compile at all, 
with a "taking address of temporary" error or similar.

It's clearly the right behaviour to allow it, but it took me by 
surprise at first.