9 Oct
2007
9 Oct
'07
10:54 a.m.
On 10/9/07, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/07, Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Marco Costalba wrote:
Because the following line
if (a = b) // here = instead of == is intended assert(a==b);
should never fail for any properly defined operator=() and operator==() it derives that operator=() as proposed for our overload does not satisfy the above very intuitive concepts (because &foo1 != &foo2) so I would say it cannot be called 'idiomatic' for this case.
Yep. Agreed. See my other post why I am convinced your intuition is correct :-) No need to convince me more ;)
How about 'register' instead of 'add' or 'assign' ?
Does is "register" a reserved keyword? Marco