-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 234
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Make lifetime extension explicit #156
Comments
Hello @BenFrantzDale, thank you, my pleasure. Andreas |
Thanks for contributing to this issue. As it has been 60 days since the last activity waiting for a followup. This issue will be automatically closed in 7 days, if no further activity occurs. This is often because the request was already solved in some way and it just wasn't updated or it's no longer applicable. If that's not the case, please respond before the issue is closed. We'll gladly take a look again! In any case, thank you for your contributions! |
Thanks for contributing to this issue. As it has been 60 days since the last activity waiting for a followup. This issue will be automatically closed in 7 days, if no further activity occurs. This is often because the request was already solved in some way and it just wasn't updated or it's no longer applicable. If that's not the case, please respond before the issue is closed. We'll gladly take a look again! In any case, thank you for your contributions! |
Thanks for creating such a cool tool!
It would be great if lifetime extension were made explicit. That is, the GOTW#88
const&
behavior: https://herbsutter.com/2008/01/01/gotw-88-a-candidate-for-the-most-important-const/as in
Right now the above produces
which is correct, but the insight I'd like to see would show that after the
return
,c
is destroyed withD::~D()
.I'm not sure how you'd show that in the output, though... Maybe in a comment?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: