Eric Niebler wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
I noticed this too, and decided it was a bug in gcc. I think that given
template<typename T> struct conv { operator T() { return T(); } }; template<typename T> void bar(T&) {}
the expression:
typedef foo const cfoo; bar(true ? conv<foo>() : cfoo());
should compile,
Even though bar takes a T& and not const T& parameter?
Yes. The type of (true ? conv<foo>() : cfoo()) is "rvalue of foo const." And const rvalues successfully bind to T&, with T deduced as "foo const."
well, if you call bar(1), it won't compile. what makes this different? I'm also confused by the fact that the above conversion operator can add a const to T, that is to say, T is specified as foo, not const foo, and so the generated class would look like struct conv_foo { operator foo() { return foo(); } }; I just don't get it :-( -Thorsten