In Effective C++, Item 3, Scott Meyers suggests overloading operator*
for a class named Rational
:
class Rational { ... };
const Rational operator*(const Rational& lhs, const Rational& rhs);
The reason for the return value being const
-qualified is explained in the following line: if it were not const
, programmers could write code such as:
(a * b) = c;
or, more probably:
if (a*b = c)
Fair enough.
Now I’m confused as I?thought that the return value of a function, here operator*, was a rvalue, therefore not assignable. I take it not being assignable because if I?had:
int foo();
foo() += 3;
that would fail to compile with invalid lvalue in assignment
.
Why doesn’t that happen here? Can someone shed some light on this?
EDIT: I have seen many other threads on that very Item of Scott Meyers, but none tackled the rvalue problem I exposed here.
See Question&Answers more detail:
os 与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…