I have recently wrapped my mind around the C++0x's concepts of glvalues, xvalues and prvalues, as well as the rvalue references. However, there's one thing which still eludes me:
What is "an rvalue reference to function type"? It is literally mentioned many times in the drafts. Why was such a concept introduced? What are the uses for it?
An lvalue is an expression that yields an object reference, such as a variable name, an array subscript reference, a dereferenced pointer, or a function call that returns a reference. An lvalue always has a defined region of storage, so you can take its address. An rvalue is an expression that is not an lvalue.
In C++ an lvalue is something that points to a specific memory location. On the other hand, a rvalue is something that doesn't point anywhere. In general, rvalues are temporary and short lived, while lvalues live a longer life since they exist as variables.
An lvalue refers to an object that persists beyond a single expression. An rvalue is a temporary value that does not persist beyond the expression that uses it.
Typically rvalues are temporary objects that exist on the stack as the result of a function call or other operation. Returning a value from a function will turn that value into an rvalue. Once you call return on an object, the name of the object does not exist anymore (it goes out of scope), so it becomes an rvalue.
I hate to be circular, but an rvalue reference to function type is an rvalue reference to function type. There is such a thing as a function type, e.g. void (). And you can form an rvalue reference to it.
In terms of the classification system introduced by N3055, it is an xvalue.
Its uses are rare and obscure, but it is not useless. Consider for example:
void f() {}
...
auto x = std::ref(f);
x has type:
std::reference_wrapper<void ()>
And if you look at the synopsis for reference_wrapper it includes:
reference_wrapper(T&) noexcept;
reference_wrapper(T&&) = delete; // do not bind to temporary objects
In this example T is the function type void (). And so the second declaration forms an rvalue reference to function type for the purpose of ensuring that reference_wrapper can't be constructed with an rvalue argument. Not even if T is const.
If it were not legal to form an rvalue reference to function, then this protection would result in a compile time error even if we did not pass an rvalue T to the constructor.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With