|
|
Richard Tobias wrote:
) In article <fsrdh6$ikl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
) Richard <devr_@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
)>I think you have lost the track with all due respect. His original did
)>produce an lvalue but a value.
)
) I think the point was that * is an example of an operator that produces
) an lvalue, so it's not necessarily unreasonable for the ?: operator to.
Yes, but * _always_ produces lvalues.
If the ?: operator were to produce lvalues, it can only do so sometimes,
which makes it a lot more difficult to do so.
I think this argument has already been made crossthread, by the way.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
|
|