On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 12:07:54AM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote: > Angus Leeming wrote: > >LOL! I think You are. You've confused this with "const &" > > and to add to the confusion (at least mine): > > why don't i see any invalid behavior or crashes with my original (wrong) > patch?
Because 'undefined behaviour' could mean anything including 'doing ewhat the user hoped for'. The reason you are likely to see the wanted result is that even if the object is destroyed, the place in memory it formerly occupied often still contains the same bit pattern. So when accessing it, you get the 'correct' values. However, there is no guarantee that the memory has not been re-used for another object in the meantime. Andre'
