Ignore me about return by reference, I forgot we were dealing with postincrement.

Jonathan

> On 22 Sep 2021, at 6:30 pm, MLJP <jonathan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Sounds cool, would you also allow return by reference?
> It’d also be nice to guarantee NRVO in this case.
>
> Jonathan
>
>> On 22 Sep 2021, at 12:12 pm, Desmond Gold Bongcawel via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> I have seen some implementations where the majority of the definition of overloaded post-increment or decrement are common.
>>
>> I proposed a feature where you can only "explicitly" default the following operators:
>>
>> class_name operator++(int) = default;
>> class_name operator--(int) = default;
>>
>> where they both rely on the pre-increment and decrement operators. The rough equivalent may be:
>>
>> class_name operator++(int) {
>> auto temp = *this;
>> ++*this;
>> return temp;
>> }
>>
>> class_name operator--(int) {
>> auto temp = *this;
>> --*this;
>> return temp;
>> }
>>
>> I hope this one could help even if it's a minor addition.
>> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals