Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • rvalue references ARE NOT references to references, although their syntax && might suggest so. Commented Feb 23, 2010 at 21:03
  • 9
    -1 Very rare for me to downvote, but I mean really, what is the point of this answer? Some posters here seem to imagine the standard is a kind of holy book. First you need a language that is useful and makes sense, only then is a standard necessary. Commented Feb 23, 2010 at 21:04
  • 4
    @Bill: How does one first have a language then a standard, when languages are defined by standards? The C++ language is defined by the standard alone; any question regarding C++ can only be answer with information from the standard. What would you propose as an answer instead? Commented Feb 23, 2010 at 21:07
  • 1
    @GMan. You misunderstand how the world works. C++ standardization occurred after C++ was created and found useful. Do you really think it is plausible to spend a vast amount of effort creating an enormously detailed standard (like the C++ standard) as the first step in launching the language ? No, these things work organically, someone has an idea, makes a toy compiler, shows it to other people, it builds momentum (or not), eventually you may get something like the C++ standard. I would propose as an answer an explanation of why this feature of C++ makes sense. Others have provided that. Commented Feb 23, 2010 at 21:16
  • 1
    FredOverflow, seems to be you are right. There are still no pointers to rvalue references. Commented Feb 23, 2010 at 21:16