> ------- Comment #4 from stevenyi at 163 dot com 2007-09-09 05:26 ------- > I can not see any reason to call the copy constructor here. If you remove > keyword explicit so that let the code compile, you can find that the copy > constructor is not called at all.
Again the 1998 standard (as written) says that even if the copy constructor is not called in this case, it needs to be able to be called implicitly. I am not making this up. -- Pinski
