Home » Developing U++ » U++ Developers corner » Should the pick semantics be changed?
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? [message #42364 is a reply to message #42362] |
Sun, 09 March 2014 13:28   |
piotr5
Messages: 107 Registered: November 2005
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
well, to formalize a bit more concretely what I said, I believe return statement should at compile-time distinguish between return values local to the function which are not static, and all the return-values which remain in scope after the end of this function respectively could get into scope again (like static values or private members and such). and then based on this distinction the actual return-value should either be constructed with implicit cast to r-value or with the persistent const-l-value-reference constructor.
but then, I'm no it-scientist, so maybe someone else should better post this proposal to the c++ standard committee and to gcc -- if it hasn't already been proposed. I am quite certain gcc could easily implement such a language-change, without waiting for the standards-commitee's decision, I doubt it is explicitly disallowed in c++11...
oh, and thanks for the c++11 branch, looking for this was the reason I started this thread.
|
|
|
 |
|
Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: piotr5 on Tue, 04 March 2014 11:00
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: mirek on Tue, 04 March 2014 12:12
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: piotr5 on Tue, 04 March 2014 23:14
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: mirek on Wed, 05 March 2014 08:54
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: piotr5 on Wed, 05 March 2014 10:27
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: mirek on Wed, 05 March 2014 12:02
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: mirek on Fri, 07 March 2014 09:00
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: piotr5 on Fri, 07 March 2014 16:23
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: mirek on Fri, 07 March 2014 16:44
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: mirek on Sun, 09 March 2014 09:34
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: piotr5 on Sun, 09 March 2014 13:28
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: Lance on Sun, 23 March 2014 22:02
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: piotr5 on Tue, 25 March 2014 19:35
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: Lance on Wed, 26 March 2014 02:37
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: Lance on Wed, 26 March 2014 02:48
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: piotr5 on Wed, 26 March 2014 10:35
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: mirek on Wed, 26 March 2014 11:38
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: Lance on Wed, 26 March 2014 21:25
|
 |
|
Re: Should the pick semantics be changed?
By: Lance on Wed, 26 March 2014 21:21
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Apr 29 16:15:25 CEST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01045 seconds
|