On 30 November 2010 21:45, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Roman Kononov <ro...@binarylife.net> wrote: >> 2010-11-30 21:20 CST, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> said: >>>We do. The point is your question is off-topic on this list, because >>>you are complaining about the C++0x language, which as far as we know >>>GCC implements correctly. If you don't like the language, complain >>>somewhere else. >>> >> >> Then please tell me which part of the standard makes the mentioned code >> invalid? >> >> I'm not complaining and I like the language. My point is that I'm trying >> to find a loophole in the standard so that g++, without violating the >> standard, could allow move-and-destroy of constants. > > if you are trying to find a loophole in the standard, then: > 1. I would have expected that you are studying the > standard, and therefore can cite appropriate > references that support your interpretation > > 2. if you make the premise that g++ correctly implements > the standard, then you should be asking your questions > in C++ standards forums as they clearly are not about > GCC development > > 3. there are better ways of using people's times than making > a statement (not supported by anything) and asking them to prove > your wrong.
I was going to refer to the relevant paragraph in the standard but I prefer this answer, thanks, Gaby.
