From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-105470-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19259 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2004 01:39:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19240 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2004 01:39:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Nov 2004 01:39:09 -0000
Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (a17-128-100-204.apple.com [17.128.100.204])
	by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ1jEY8011437
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:45:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with ESMTP id <T6d592ce0a2118064cc618@mailgate2.apple.com>;
 Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:39:08 -0800
Received: from [17.219.197.191] ([17.219.197.191])
	by relay4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ1d5T5026151;
	Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:39:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20041118164022.A12363@synopsys.com>
References: <8AD5AEEF-3914-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <880AA6A7-397D-11D9-A788-000A95BA54A6@apple.com> <20041118100933.A4942@synopsys.com> <F5E55C80-39BF-11D9-8317-00039390FFE2@apple.com> <20041118164022.A12363@synopsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <CC6E282F-39CB-11D9-8317-00039390FFE2@apple.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>, Fariborz Jahanian <fjahanian@apple.com>,
        gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
From: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski@apple.com>
Subject: Re: generalized lvalues
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:00:00 -0000
To: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00663.txt.bz2


On 18 Nov 2004, at 16.40, Joe Buck wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 04:14:21PM -0800, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
>> Of course, since we are discussing a language extension, _we_ get to
>> decide how it interacts with C++ overloading.
>> For the same reason, Matt's assertion that the feature "breaks valid
>> C++ programs" is inherently contradictory,
>> since programs containing it cannot be valid. :-)
>
> You just completely ignored what I wrote.  Go back and read it again.
> Cast-as-lvalue breaks valid C++ programs.  Period.  It breaks programs
> that never assign to a cast.

You're right -- for some reason, I completely blanked out on the fact 
that the cast is still legal (!!!), and so that we're (more or less 
silently) changing the semantics of that cast.  My apologies...

Also, I realized that the lvalue casts that I desire would never be 
used in the scenario your example depicts; I'm really concerned about 
"assigning to a cast", as you put it.

--Zem