Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Message-ID | <k4852m$2bs3$1@adenine.netfront.net> (permalink) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c++ |
| From | michael@mehlich.com |
| Subject | C++11 Ranking implicit conversion sequences (13.3.3.2) |
| Organization | Netfront http://www.netfront.net/ |
| Date | 2012-09-30 21:17 -0600 |
The standard (actually earlier versions as well as the current github draft) provide the following statement in 13.3.3.2 for comparing conversion sequences: "Standard conversion sequence S1 is a better conversion sequence than standard conversion sequence S2 if ... S1 and S2 are reference bindings (8.5.3) and neither refers to an implicit object parameter of a non-static member function declared without a ref-qualifier, and S1 binds an rvalue reference to an rvalue and S2 binds an lvalue reference." This is immediately followed by the example: int g(const int&); int g(const int&&); int j = g(i); // calls g(const int &) which is a preference of binding an lvalue reference to an lvalue over binding an rvalue reference to an lvalue. The above statement does not say anything about this preference, nor could I find any other statement in 13.3.3.2 that would provide this preference. Did I miss something somewhere? What is the correct resolution rule for this? If it is "prefer binding an lvalue reference to an lvalue over binding an rvalue reference to an lvalue" then the next statement in the standard becomes obsolete as it just imposes an additional restriction to functions... -- Michael --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- -- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try posting with your ] [ newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]
Back to comp.std.c++ | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
C++11 Ranking implicit conversion sequences (13.3.3.2) michael@mehlich.com - 2012-09-30 21:17 -0600 Re: C++11 Ranking implicit conversion sequences (13.3.3.2) Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com> - 2012-10-02 02:57 -0600
csiph-web