Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7000773
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 27, 20262026-05-27T20:42:56+00:00 2026-05-27T20:42:56+00:00

Came across a proposal called rvalue reference for *this in clang’s C++11 status page

  • 0

Came across a proposal called “rvalue reference for *this” in clang’s C++11 status page.

I’ve read quite a bit about rvalue references and understood them, but I don’t think I know about this. I also couldn’t find much resources on the web using the terms.

There’s a link to the proposal paper on the page: N2439 (Extending move semantics to *this), but I’m also not getting much examples from there.

What is this feature about?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-27T20:42:56+00:00Added an answer on May 27, 2026 at 8:42 pm

    First, "ref-qualifiers for *this" is a just a "marketing statement". The type of *this never changes, see the bottom of this post. It’s way easier to understand it with this wording though.

    Next, the following code chooses the function to be called based on the ref-qualifier of the "implicit object parameter" of the function†:

    // t.cpp
    #include <iostream>
    
    struct test{
      void f() &{ std::cout << "lvalue object\n"; }
      void f() &&{ std::cout << "rvalue object\n"; }
    };
    
    int main(){
      test t;
      t.f(); // lvalue
      test().f(); // rvalue
    }
    

    Output:

    $ clang++ -std=c++0x -stdlib=libc++ -Wall -pedantic t.cpp
    $ ./a.out
    lvalue object
    rvalue object
    

    The whole thing is done to allow you to take advantage of the fact when the object the function is called on is an rvalue (unnamed temporary, for example). Take the following code as a further example:

    struct test2{
      std::unique_ptr<int[]> heavy_resource;
    
      test2()
        : heavy_resource(new int[500]) {}
    
      operator std::unique_ptr<int[]>() const&{
        // lvalue object, deep copy
        std::unique_ptr<int[]> p(new int[500]);
        for(int i=0; i < 500; ++i)
          p[i] = heavy_resource[i];
    
        return p;
      }
    
      operator std::unique_ptr<int[]>() &&{
        // rvalue object
        // we are garbage anyways, just move resource
        return std::move(heavy_resource);
      }
    };
    

    This may be a bit contrived, but you should get the idea.

    Note that you can combine the cv-qualifiers (const and volatile) and ref-qualifiers (& and &&).


    Note: Many standard quotes and overload resolution explanation after here!

    † To understand how this works, and why @Nicol Bolas’ answer is at least partly wrong, we have to dig in the C++ standard for a bit (the part explaining why @Nicol’s answer is wrong is at the bottom, if you’re only interested in that).

    Which function is going to be called is determined by a process called overload resolution. This process is fairly complicated, so we’ll only touch the bit that is important to us.

    First, it’s important to see how overload resolution for member functions works:

    §13.3.1 [over.match.funcs]

    p2 The set of candidate functions can contain both member and non-member functions to be resolved against the same argument list. So that argument and parameter lists are comparable within this heterogeneous set, a member function is considered to have an extra parameter, called the implicit object parameter, which represents the object for which the member function has been called. […]

    p3 Similarly, when appropriate, the context can construct an argument list that contains an implied object argument to denote the object to be operated on.

    Why do we even need to compare member and non-member functions? Operator overloading, that’s why. Consider this:

    struct foo{
      foo& operator<<(void*); // implementation unimportant
    };
    
    foo& operator<<(foo&, char const*); // implementation unimportant
    

    You’d certainly want the following to call the free function, don’t you?

    char const* s = "free foo!\n";
    foo f;
    f << s;
    

    That’s why member and non-member functions are included in the so-called overload-set. To make the resolution less complicated, the bold part of the standard quote exists. Additionally, this is the important bit for us (same clause):

    p4 For non-static member functions, the type of the implicit object parameter is

    • “lvalue reference to cv X” for functions declared without a ref-qualifier or with the & ref-qualifier

    • “rvalue reference to cv X” for functions declared with the && ref-qualifier

    where X is the class of which the function is a member and cv is the cv-qualification on the member function declaration. […]

    p5 During overload resolution […] [t]he implicit object parameter […] retains its identity since conversions on the corresponding argument shall obey these additional rules:

    • no temporary object can be introduced to hold the argument for the implicit object parameter; and

    • no user-defined conversions can be applied to achieve a type match with it

    […]

    (The last bit just means that you can’t cheat overload resolution based on implicit conversions of the object a member function (or operator) is called on.)

    Let’s take the first example at the top of this post. After the aforementioned transformation, the overload-set looks something like this:

    void f1(test&); // will only match lvalues, linked to 'void test::f() &'
    void f2(test&&); // will only match rvalues, linked to 'void test::f() &&'
    

    Then the argument list, containing an implied object argument, is matched against the parameter-list of every function contained in the overload-set. In our case, the argument list will only contain that object argument. Let’s see how that looks like:

    // first call to 'f' in 'main'
    test t;
    f1(t); // 't' (lvalue) can match 'test&' (lvalue reference)
           // kept in overload-set
    f2(t); // 't' not an rvalue, can't match 'test&&' (rvalue reference)
           // taken out of overload-set
    

    If, after all overloads in the set are tested, only one remains, the overload resolution succeeded and the function linked to that transformed overload is called. The same goes for the second call to ‘f’:

    // second call to 'f' in 'main'
    f1(test()); // 'test()' not an lvalue, can't match 'test&' (lvalue reference)
                // taken out of overload-set
    f2(test()); // 'test()' (rvalue) can match 'test&&' (rvalue reference)
                // kept in overload-set
    

    Note however that, had we not provided any ref-qualifier (and as such not overloaded the function), that f1 would match an rvalue (still §13.3.1):

    p5 […] For non-static member functions declared without a ref-qualifier, an additional rule applies:

    • even if the implicit object parameter is not const-qualified, an rvalue can be bound to the parameter as long as in all other respects the argument can be converted to the type of the implicit object parameter.
    struct test{
      void f() { std::cout << "lvalue or rvalue object\n"; }
    };
    
    int main(){
      test t;
      t.f(); // OK
      test().f(); // OK too
    }
    

    Now, onto why @Nicol’s answer is atleast partly wrong. He says:

    Note that this declaration changes the type of *this.

    That is wrong, *this is always an lvalue:

    §5.3.1 [expr.unary.op] p1

    The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the object or function to which the expression points.

    §9.3.2 [class.this] p1

    In the body of a non-static (9.3) member function, the keyword this is a prvalue expression whose value is the address of the object for which the function is called. The type of this in a member function of a class X is X*. […]

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I came across a piece of python list decclaration. I am bit confused about
I came across this question about memory management of dictionaries, which mentions the intern
Came across this error today. Wondering if anyone can tell me what it means:
Came across something like this today, and was wondering if there was an equivalent
I came across this article written by Andrei Alexandrescu and Petru Marginean many years
I came across this recently, up until now I have been happily overriding the
I came across this class while reading a C# book and have some questions.
I came across an article about Car remote entry system at http://auto.howstuffworks.com/remote-entry2.htm In the
I came across the function InterlockedExchange and was wondering when I should use this
I came across this snippet of code on MSDN: entityBuilder.Metadata = @res://*/AdventureWorksModel.csdl| res://*/AdventureWorksModel.ssdl| res://*/AdventureWorksModel.msl;

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.