Wow. I saw ikegamis post 3 times, and it looked radically different all three times.
Current
<blockquote><p><i>Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I + posted.</i></blockquote> <p>That's why I asked what you considered to be a bug. My guess: The l +ack of copying by operators causes other operators to behave differen +tly than you'd expect. <p>If you deliberately hide information, you only have yourself to bla +me for any ensuing confusion
Before that
<blockquote><p><i>Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I + posted.</i></blockquote> <p>Then what you posted incorrectly assumes lvalue results only affect + concatenation.
Before that it was something equally grumpy about being confused, but not resembling the above two sentiments in any other way.
In reply to Re^11: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order)
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Order of evaluation/interpolation of references
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |