Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4294 gnu.g++:329
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!lll-winken!pacbell!att!cbnewsl!dog
From: dog@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (edward.n.schiebel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,gnu.g++
Subject: Re: What's the diff?
Message-ID: <1389@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Aug 89 12:27:39 GMT
References: <119611@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24

From article <119611@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, by acw%illini@Sun.COM (Alex Wu [GPD] x6-6874):
>> these two examples?  The Lippman book (p. 197) prefers to define the
>> function type to return a reference to the class while the Pohl book
>> (p. 125) seems to prefer to return the class.  Both seem to work
>> equally well as both lvalue and rvalue.
>> 
...
> One difference I can think of is that the first class allows 
> the cascade of "++" in this case, that is:
> 
>   counter i;
>   (i++)++;

Also:
  By returning a reference, the result may be used as an lvalue.
  (i++) = something else;

  If used on the right hand side of an assignment i.e. j = i++, return
  by reference (almost) guarantees a copy of the object is not 
  created in the process.

	Ed Schiebel
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	att!vilya!dog