Using strings to show my point was not a good idea. You can add a field
"int number" to the struct and perform similar operations (with =
instead of strcpy).
But even with strings, gcc should give an error like: "strcpy(const
char*, const char*) does not exists". In case of a "typedef char
string100[100]", gcc behaves correctly by ringing alarm bells. So it
seems to be the . operator that behaves incorrectly.
If you replace /*&*/ by & in the SuperArray class, the program becomes
correct (in my opinion), but also the effect of the program becomes
different.
Regards, Michiel
Andrew Pinski schreef:
On 9/20/07, Michiel de Bondt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
struct string100 { char value[100]; };
strcpy (a[0].value, "Non-lvalue assignment."); // illegal
So you basically have:
a.operator[](0).value
Where value ia an array, I cannot remember the specific rules here but
value decays to &value[0] which is considered a rvalue but value[0] is
a lvalue even if a.operator[](0) is an rvalue.
So I think GCC is correct in accepting this code.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
