>> Are those ref-qualifiers still to be added to the assignment
>> operators within the Library?

Daniel Kruegler wrote:
>
> One important use-case for ref-qualifications for basically
> all member functions seem to be all atomic types in the
> recent library draft. As of
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2514.html
> the section "Ambiguity and Insecurity" ends with the sentence:
> "In summary, atomic objects are only lvalues, never rvalues."

Thanks for your feedback, Daniel.  A preliminary version of my issue
regarding ref-qualifiers for assignment operators is now at Howard
Hinnant's preview page:
http://home.roadrunner.com/~hinnant/issue_review/lwg-active.html#941
(Note: Howard's site has a new URL!)  I'll add a proposed resolution
before the end of the year, listing all the relevant assignment
operators.

I didn't include your atomic-specific comment, because I think it
might be worth another issue...  Basically you're saying that all
non-const member functions of an atomic type should have a
ref-qualifier (&), right?  I'm not experienced with atomic types, so
maybe you can submit an LWG issue on that particular subject?
Especially, I wonder: is it okay to create an rvalue of an atomic
type? For example by static_cast<T&&>, or by std::move, or by directly
calling its default-constructor? Otherwise it might be preferable to
prevent the _creation_ of atomic rvalues, instead of preventing their
usage. What do you think?

Kind regards, Niels

--
Niels Dekker
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nd/dekkerware
Scientific programmer at LKEB, Leiden University Medical Center

--
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]