Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Move semantics with literals
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:36:51 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <87pl414f64.fsf@posteo.de>
References: <10rlkk9$6hau$1@dont-email.me> <87jyu960xp.fsf@posteo.de> <10rlldg$6qiv$1@dont-email.me> <xEuDR.194284$4wI6.33753@fx24.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 17:36:52 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="802fe6a8d5b97504ac6764022e672b27"; logging-data="275451"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182mkdN7I19PXfeXH52Pv9lLrNqlR8BDGw="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ftql5kNQvNDhwQxyy2KUtnEcJ+k= sha1:lAfuYkHST5U5qk/oJihBwLs/USE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:123730

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> boltar@caprica.universe writes:
>>On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:01:22 -0400
>>Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> gabbled:
>>>boltar@caprica.universe writes:
>>>
>>>> To my chagrin I got caught out by this trick question in an interview:
>>>>
>>>> int func(int &&a)
>>>> {
>>>>         return a * 2;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> :
>>>>         int b = func(123);
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> Where the question was "what would happen". I assumed it wouldn't compile
>>>> being a reference to a literal but it does. So I'm just wondering why on
>>>> earth and when would you ever do the above? Is there some wierd use case?
>>>
>>>The only use case I can see is tricky interview questions.  ;)
>>
>>Unfortunately it was that kind of interview where they tried to catch you
>>out rather than testing your code writing and debugging abilities. Luckily I 
>>wasn't fooled by the other questions though it does make me wonder if I'd want 
>>to work in a place that has this kind of moronic interview process.
>>
>
> I dunno, perhaps they're doing it intentionally to weed out
> candidates that did not object to the the silly test?

<snip>

That's one of the few reasons I would accept as valid.  I have my doubts
however as to whether this is what they ware actually doing.  In my
experience, most employers don't like it when their employees push back
on nonsense.

-- 
Regards,
Jonathan Lamothe
https://jlamothe.net