weiss@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu (Gerald Weiss) writes:


>Could anyone explain the rationale behind the default
>operator = having a prototype of

> X &(const X &)

>rather than

> const X &(const X &) ?

>The latter would prevent code such as

> (a = b) = c

>Is there a deliberate intention to allow such code? I have seen
>references to this issue, some in fact offering examples of
>marginal usefullness, but was wondering if there was some application
>of the capability that I was overlooking.


I gues the main rationalle, is to make operator= behave like it does
for non-class object. I can conceive of somebody wanting to write
smething like:

(x=y).a_member = comething;   // or
(x=y).non_const_member_function();

Could anyone explain the rationale behind the default
operator = having a prototype of

 X &(const X &)

rather than

 const X &(const X &) ?

The latter would prevent code such as

 (a = b) = c

Is there a deliberate intention to allow such code? I have seen
references to this issue, some in fact offering examples of
marginal usefullness, but was wondering if there was some application
of the capability that I was overlooking.

 Thanks,


      |
     / \     |\\ |\\   Gerald Weiss
    /___\    |// ||    Department of Computer and Information Science
    |   |    |\\ ||    Brooklyn College/CUNY
   /_____\   |// |//