"Rani Sharoni" <rani_sharoni@hotmail.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
"Rani Sharoni" <rani_sharoni@hotmail.com> writes:
When source and destinations un-cv types are the same or base/derived direct initialization and copy initialization are the same (per 8.5/14/4/2) and this fact was (viciously) exploited by the old auto_ptr.
Something's missing from that sentence to make it comprehensible.
It has the same grammatical structure as "When my hand is blue or my hair is green and I was a fool", which is not a complete sentence.
I'm not sure that I understand your intention.
I'm trying to say that I don't understand what you're saying in that "sentence", and I'm trying to explain why I don't understand it. The "sentence" is grammatically incomplete. I'd like you to explain what you're trying to say.
For some reason I thought that what I wrote is so trivial that even grammar errors will not hide my intentions. It seems that Christoph Ludwig understand my intentions.
I tend to be overly literal minded, and the missing comma after "derived" threw me off.
Direct initialization is the *same* as copy initialization when constructing object of the same type using non-explicit (i.e. converting) constructor.
struct A { A(int); };
A a1(A(10)); // #1 A a2 = A(20); // #2 same as #1
Both initializations are the same per 8.5/14/4/2: <Q> If the initialization is direct-initialization, or if it is copy-initialization where the cv-unqualified version of the source type is the same class as, or a derived class of, the class of the destination, constructors are considered. The applicable constructors are enumerated (13.3.1.3), and the best one is chosen through overload resolution (13.3). </Q>
So you're basically saying that in my suggested text: "A temporary of type ``cv1 T2'' [sic] is constructed using direct initialization from the rvalue object. The reference is bound to the temporary or to a sub-object within the temporary" the mention of direct initialization is pointless and could be written : "A temporary of type ``cv1 T2'' [sic] is initialized from the rvalue object. The reference is bound to the temporary or to a sub-object within the temporary" ?? I think the text has to account for the possibility that the constructor used might be explicit, doesn't it?
IMO your suggestion is fully compliant and EDG has bug that confuses everyone.
I don't have anything else to add to this discussion.
Sorry to draw it out, but I don't understand when you say "suggestion" whether you're referring to my suggested text change or the movable class idiom I posted.
Thanks, Rani
No alarms and not surprises silence.
Wow, parse error again. Radiohead? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com