Why do struct literals count as lvalues?

[Ali Çehreli]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:33:47 +0200, Trass3r wrote:

> Am 18.08.2011, 22:19 Uhr, schrieb Jonathan M Davis
> <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>:
>> Yeah. I don't understand why a struct literal would be an lvalue. It's
>> a temporary. What possible value does it have? It's not a variable. It
>> doesn't
>> refer to a variable. Why would you be able to assign to anything which
>> is not
>> a variable (or indirectly refers to one - e.g. with ref)?
> 
> I don't understand it either.
> It only makes sense with const ref.

(I suspect that I am confusing issues here; still... :) )

C++11 added rvalue references. They are useful at least for move 
semantics. (Andrei had worked hard to find an non-intrusive solution but 
had to settle with an intrusive one: http://drdobbs.com/184403855 )

I remember reading about this in the TDPL. 7.1.3.5 is on topic. Here is 
an excerpt from page 251:

 "All anonymous rvalues are moved, not copied. A call to this(this) is 
never inserted when the source is an anonymous rvalue ..."

Good. And when we want to move a named variable, there is 
std.algorithm.move:

  kun(move(w));

Ali