Re: Extended return question

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:43:09 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:

> I don't see any problem here.  The "notion of limited type" is "do not
> copy".  In the example below, X is created, then destroyed, then another
> X is created, and that becomes the result.  No copying.

No, we cannot say that, because

A) X is not created until the constructing function returns. There is just
no X until that point. The question is *what* was created and destroyed? It
is improperly typed, at least.

B) On the other hand, if we considered X being created, destroyed and
created again, then the name X would resolve into two different objects in
the same context. This would either violate the identity semantics of X or
be semantically equivalent to an assignment of X.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de