> Doing something like Row will produce a compile-time error. Since 1 is created as
> a constant by the compiler. The compiler won't explicitely cast from non-const to const.
> it will, however, do the opposite. So I think it'd be better to take a constant since the
> value is not modified anyways, or so I think. I could be wrong, which is why I was
This would be true if Row was operator(int&): an rvalue doesn't bind
to a non-const reference.
But if that operator is operator(int) there is not problem: the
parameter, rvalue or lvalue, will be copied into the function in all cases.
Declaring a function like this:
f (const int);
makes no sense.
Intersix Technologies S.A.
SP: (55 11 3803-9300)
RJ: (55 21 3852-3240)
Your Security is our Business