Frédéric Bron <frederic.b...@m4x.org> writes: >> const string & as return type is madness. For one thing, it's >> guaranteed _not_ to be an efficiency gain in C++11. For another, it >> produces _serious_ destructor/lifetime issues. > > Of course I am not speaking of new strings created in the function! > That would be stupid. But if you return a member of an object for > example, it is stupid to return a copy of it (I do not know if this > happens, however).
Not every object is persistent. Again: references create life-time issues. Messing with them, particularly in the case of a basic conceptually scalar data structure like "string" only makes some remote sense when there is positive proof that there is a serious performance impact for known implementations. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
