From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Subject: Re: Does object renaming allow the view to be a copy?
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 17:37:10 +0000
Date: 2017-01-22T17:37:10+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ly37gbj8s9.fsf@pushface.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 037bcf19-7753-459e-afa5-773b7ee82246@googlegroups.com
AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de> writes:
> Am Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 09:27:47 UTC+1 schrieb G.B.:
>> A SO answer (41746244) has given rise to the question of whether
>> or not a compiler implementer may make a renamed object a copy
>> of the original. (Layman's assumptions from LRM 3.1(7), 8.5.1),
I did suggest that it would have to be a crazy implementer who did this.
> 3.1(7) ...a renaming_declaration is an example of a declaration that
> does not define a new entity, but instead defines a view of an
> existing entity (see 8.5)...
>
> So how can you think a compiler may create a copy?
I think that if the object isn't limited and the operations done on it
don't alter its contents you'd be hard put to it to tell the difference,
that's all.
But like I said, crazy. Under the hood, any sensible person would have a
reference to the original object.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-22 17:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-22 8:27 Does object renaming allow the view to be a copy? G.B.
2017-01-22 10:37 ` Simon Wright
2017-01-22 16:26 ` AdaMagica
2017-01-22 17:37 ` Simon Wright [this message]
2017-01-22 20:24 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2017-01-23 10:49 ` AdaMagica
2017-01-23 11:06 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2017-01-23 20:40 ` Randy Brukardt
2017-01-24 16:06 ` Robert Eachus
2017-01-24 21:08 ` Randy Brukardt
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox