I ran into the problem that RValue does not allow implicit conversion. My questions is what implementation is better to \"bypass\" this limitation?
In C++, pre-increment operator gives lvalue because incremented object itself is returned, not a copy.
What is the design rationale behind allowing this const Foo& a = function_retur开发者_开发问答ning_Foo_by_value();
I\'ve encountered a problem when passing returned rvalue references from a depth of more than 1. struct Data {
Consider the situation where a function template needs to forward an argument while keeping it\'s lvalue-ness in case it\'s a non-const lvalue, but is itself agnostic to what the argument actually is,
I\'m wondering the best form for my constructors. Here is some sample code: class Y { ... } class X { public:
C++03 §4.2 N°1: An lvalue or rvalue of type “array of N T” or “array of unknown bound of T” can be converted to an rvalue of type “pointer to T.” The result is a pointer to the first element o
What is the difference between: const double& pi 开发者_运维问答= 3.14; and (no ampersand): const double pi = 3.14;
After extensive reading of ISO/IEC 14882, Programming language – C++ I\'m still unsure why const is needed for implicit conversion to a user-defined type with a single argument constructor like the f
The following C++ code, compiles without warning in Visual Studio 2010: extern void callFunc( int, int );
加载中,请稍侯......