Sorry if this is a FAQ but why is it not standard C++ to
allow the initialisation of a referenceto type foo with
a function that returns type foo?
--
Adrian
Adrian@mcmen.demon.co.uk

In article 773441081snz@mcmen.demon.co.uk, Adrian@mcmen.demon.co.uk (Adrian McMenamin) writes:
>Sorry if this is a FAQ but why is it not standard C++ to
>allow the initialisation of a referenceto type foo with
>a function that returns type foo?
>--
>Adrian
>Adrian@mcmen.demon.co.uk

Do you mean something like this?

   class Object { };

   Object setup() {
      return *new Object;
   }

   int main() {
      Object& obj = setup();
   }

I haven't verified if there are any violations against the standard in this
particular example but atleast there are no problems when compiling it.

_______________
Fredrik Jonsson

>>>>> Adrian McMenamin <Adrian@mcmen.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Sorry if this is a FAQ but why is it not standard C++ to allow the
> initialisation of a referenceto type foo with a function that returns
> type foo?

Because doing so would involve binding a reference to a temporary object,
which is only allowed if the reference is to const foo.

Jason