Skip to main content

Return to Answer

added 1 character in body
Source Link
akai
akai
  • 2.1k
  • 4
  • 29
  • 52

Here I try to summarize my understanding after reading the given comments.

The whole purpose of returning an rvalue reference is to use it in some way, so returning an rvalue reference that points to a function local object, which is already invalid when the function returns, is not considered (well, I'm sure the committee does consider this of course, but not as an intended usage).

As a result, if I have a function T&& f() { /.../ return valval; }, val is supposed to locate somewhere with its identity even after f() returns, otherwise it's dangling which is a mere error. Therefore, the intention that f() has an identity, so is an xvalue, is justified.

Here I try to summarize my understanding after reading the given comments.

The whole purpose of returning an rvalue reference is to use it in some way, so returning an rvalue reference that points to a function local object, which is already invalid when the function returns, is not considered (well, I'm sure the committee does consider this of course, but not as an intended usage).

As a result, if I have a function T&& f() { /.../ return val }, val is supposed to locate somewhere with its identity even after f() returns, otherwise it's dangling which is a mere error. Therefore, the intention that f() has an identity, so is an xvalue, is justified.

Here I try to summarize my understanding after reading the given comments.

The whole purpose of returning an rvalue reference is to use it in some way, so returning an rvalue reference that points to a function local object, which is already invalid when the function returns, is not considered (well, I'm sure the committee does consider this of course, but not as an intended usage).

As a result, if I have a function T&& f() { /.../ return val; }, val is supposed to locate somewhere with its identity even after f() returns, otherwise it's dangling which is a mere error. Therefore, the intention that f() has an identity, so is an xvalue, is justified.

Source Link
akai
akai
  • 2.1k
  • 4
  • 29
  • 52

Here I try to summarize my understanding after reading the given comments.

The whole purpose of returning an rvalue reference is to use it in some way, so returning an rvalue reference that points to a function local object, which is already invalid when the function returns, is not considered (well, I'm sure the committee does consider this of course, but not as an intended usage).

As a result, if I have a function T&& f() { /.../ return val }, val is supposed to locate somewhere with its identity even after f() returns, otherwise it's dangling which is a mere error. Therefore, the intention that f() has an identity, so is an xvalue, is justified.