From 3464364078568090487 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,f5d433881cc29cff X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: David Vandevoorde Subject: Re: Named return value optimisation- reprise. Date: 1997/06/20 Message-ID: <33A8961E.403A3970@vandevoorde.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 251293465 References: <199706172326.SAA05629@csrlink.net> <33a72f32.5732106@news.ipswich.gil.com.au> X-Original-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:14:54 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Organization: - X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBFAgUBM6o/jOEDnX0m9pzZAQFx6gGAh4VmTiBo1XTZS9R7I8vJZSG42kinDlpX Wbw3EO7StBWmWwNluAUAHdBZqZl2SVE0 =kjpk Reply-To: daveed@vandevoorde.com Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU Brian Parker wrote: [...] > I have looked over the draft again and I don't agree- I wonder if > some other language expert could give their opinion on this. I agree > that in various places there is a hint that temporaries may be elided > (e.g. 12.2/1, [stmt.return], etc), but the only place that explicitly > mentions eliding temps (not just named temps) is 12.8/15. [expr.call]/4 mentions that a conversion followed by a by-value initialization for class-type arguments to a call can be folded into just a conversion. Daveed --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ] [ Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ] [ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]