[cfe-commits] r67059 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/AST/ include/clang/Basic/ lib/AST/ lib/CodeGen/ lib/Sema/ test/Parser/ test/SemaCXX/

[Howard Hinnant]

On Mar 23, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:

> On Mar 21, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>
>> On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>
>>> Howard, there's a question for you below. Just search for your name.
>>
>> I didn't see a question.
>
> Errr, sorry. The question was: do you agree that the following code  
> should be ill-
> formed?
>
>  struct A { };
>
>  struct B {
>    operator A&&();
>  }
>
>  void test(B b) {
>    const A &ar = b; // error: operator A&&() returns an rvalue, so  
> it should not be considered when trying to bind ar to b
>  }

I'm not positive.  However assuming that this is ill-formed:

  struct A { };

  struct B {
    operator A&();
  }

  void test(B b) {
    const A &ar = b; // error: operator A&() returns an lvalue, so it  
should not be considered when trying to bind ar to b
  }

(by some rule buried in [over]), then I see no reason to have operator  
A&&() behave differently (it should also be ill-formed).  If however  
my assumption is incorrect, then I would like to investigate this  
further.

-Howard