From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-27 16:36:26
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> 1) as written above, it fails to compile on a conforming compler.
>> This is because the << operator takes a reference as its argument.
>
> Why is it a good idea for << to take its 2nd argument by non-const
> reference??
To trap non-const cases and refuse to compile them. ;-) (Back to square
one.)