From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-105418-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21911 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2004 04:18:54 -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 21858 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2004 04:18:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Nov 2004 04:18:50 -0000
Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225])
	by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAI4OrnE003952
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:24:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with ESMTP id <T6d549948b7118064e141c@mailgate1.apple.com>;
 Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:19:27 -0800
Received: from [17.219.197.172] ([17.219.197.172])
	by relay4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAI4Il8h027323;
	Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:18:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <FD2BC998-3914-11D9-AEB4-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu>
References: <8AD5AEEF-3914-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <FD2BC998-3914-11D9-AEB4-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <F16F2852-3918-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
From: Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>
Subject: Re: generalized lvalues
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:24:00 -0000
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00611.txt.bz2

On Nov 17, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:

>
> On Nov 17, 2004, at 10:47 PM, Matt Austern wrote:
>
>>  1. It broke valid C++ programs.  If we overload a function on 
>> constness, like foo(int&) and foo(const int&), then invoking it as 
>> foo((int) x) is required to call the const version.  Generalized 
>> lvalues made us choose the latter.
>
> If it broke it please file a bug and don't complain that we broke it.

No, no!  Other way around.  The fact that we used to have generalized 
lvalues broke valid C++ programs, and getting rid of generalized 
lvalues fixed that class of bugs.  That's one of the reasons we got rid 
of them.

That's what I was trying to say, anyway.  I was trying to list all the 
reasons I knew of why we got rid of generalized lvalues.  I was not 
trying to list reasons for bringing them back.  My apologies if I was 
unclear.

			--Matt