Re: [boost] [type traits extension] test for const volatile& as return type

Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jeffrey.hellrung <at> gmail.com> writes:

<snip> By this logic,

void f(int&); void f(...) f(i++)

should also fail to compile, no?

I would think that the failure of an int rvalue to initialize either an int& or an int const volatile & would simply drop that overload from consideration.

I was so focused on whether it would be legal to call `void g(int const volatile&)` with an int rvalue that I completely forgot about the ellipsis overload. :-P I agree with you completely -- in this context `void g(T)` should be discarded during overload resolution and `void g(...)` should be called. Forgive my oversight -- this is definitely a bug in the Intel compiler.