From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-105461-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5340 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2004 00:14:29 -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 5325 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2004 00:14:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Nov 2004 00:14:25 -0000
Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225])
	by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ0Kxbc028333
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay3.apple.com (relay3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with ESMTP id <T6d58dfe348118064e141c@mailgate1.apple.com>;
 Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:15:02 -0800
Received: from [17.219.197.191] ([17.219.197.191])
	by relay3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ0ELlp025804;
	Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:14:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20041118100933.A4942@synopsys.com>
References: <8AD5AEEF-3914-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <880AA6A7-397D-11D9-A788-000A95BA54A6@apple.com> <20041118100933.A4942@synopsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <F5E55C80-39BF-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 00:20:00 -0000
To: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00654.txt.bz2


On 18 Nov 2004, at 10.09, Joe Buck wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 08:18:50AM -0800, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
>> What was the rational to have this extension in the first place. Maybe
>> we sould dig this out before
>> declaring that it was a 'bad idea'.
>
> It's a C extension that is wrong for C++.
>
> It interacts very badly with overloading.  There is no overloading in 
> C.

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. :-)

--Zem