Re: static or not?

From:

kwikius <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:55:52 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID:

<7ea86e34-3060-453b-8098-3a0e9f4fd25c@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>

On Jan 29, 12:14 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:

* kwikius:

Could add that its an unnecessary requirement AFAICS. (Perhaps the
return type was changed from value to const reference at some point.)

#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>

struct my{
explicit my (double v_in) : v (v_in){};
  double v;
private :
   my ( my const &);

};

inline bool operator <
(my const & lhs, my const & rhs)
{
   return lhs.v < rhs.v;
}

int main()
{
  my x(1),y(2);
  my const & r = std::min(x,y);

Consider instead

my const& r = std::min( x, my(2) );

Ouch!. But Isnt whether 'my' is copy constructible or not irrelevant
here. It will still screw up just the same ?

hmmm....

<...>

I wonder if the code above will be valid in C++0x, and if so, how the
heck the compiler could implement the necessary lifetime extension for
the temporary?

hmm.... Mental note!

I'll look at the move constructible widget when it materialises,
meanwhile my overloads of min/max will return by value.

:-)

regards
Andy Little