Destructors, const structs, and opEquals

[so]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:05:07 +0200, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 12/4/10 6:50 AM, so wrote:
>>> I'm 99.99% certain that it's perfectly legal to pass a temporary to a
>>> function
>>> that takes a const T& and that it's in the standard
>>
>> Oh that is right, but both are different things.
>>
>> Say, when you have:
>>
>> T fun() {...}
>> void bar(const T&) {...}
>>
>> bar(fun()) // 1. this is perfectly legal.
>> const T& a = fun(); // 2. not legal, but still you can do it on some
>> compilers.
>
> Second line is legal too. Petru Marginean and I use it to good effect in  
> my ScopeGuard idiom (a precursor to D's scope guards).
>
> http://www.drdobbs.com/184403758
>
>
> Andrei

I was sure that always output C4238 on MSVC, and simply rejected on GCC.
Now I tried with 2 versions of MSVC and it didn't give any warnings.
As it looks like this is only for pointers. That is:

const T* a = &fun();

I have encountered this quite a few times and i was sure reference example  
above also same since i can't think of a reason
that i would take take the address of a temporary function...

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/