Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclscu!shankar
From: shankar@hpclscu.HP.COM (Shankar Unni)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: coercion of x op= y verses x = x op y ???
Message-ID: <1000030@hpclscu.HP.COM>
Date: 5 Oct 89 22:08:46 GMT
References: <6590279@hplsla.HP.COM>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Calif. Language Lab
Lines: 16

>   I = I * I;			// okay by both g++ 1.35.x and AT&T 2.0
>   I *= I; 			// g++ 1.35.x accepts, 2.0 calls it an error

I think the key here is that in the first case, you are assigning to I a
value with an implicit constructor (Int(int)).

In the second case, you are either applying a "*=" operator to an Int (no
such operator defined), or to an int (which is generated by a function
call, which is not an lvalue).

I don't know what to say here - "gcc" seems to "Do What I Mean, Not What I
Say", which is nice and friendly, but I don't think this is legal..

Just one of those gotcha's (sigh!)
----
Shankar.