Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Reference Semantics
Message-ID: <9364@alice.UUCP>
Date: 16 May 89 23:14:51 GMT
References: <315@odi.ODI.COM> <9310@alice.UUCP> <10251@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> <323@odi.ODI.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 28

In article <323@odi.ODI.COM>, benson@odi.com (Benson Margulies) writes:

> As for (c), I still believe that 
> 
> 	&ref = new_pointer;
> 
> would be very useful, and more in the C general style.

I won't get into the argument of whether or not such a thing
would be useful.  I will merely point out that this particular
syntax can't work because it already has a meaning in some
contexts.

For example:

	struct T {
		int& operator&();
	};

	void f(T& ref)
	{
		&ref = 3;
	}

This is valid in all current versions of C++.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com