On 23 June 2017 at 00:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 22 June 2017 at 19:06, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I agree the implicit copy constructor is broken, but I don't see how >> operator[] is legal. It seems to give a single address two dynamic types. > > No it doesn't. There's only one dynamic type at a time. And as far as I can see, operator[] only assumes the dynamic type is T, and only access it as T. Where's the second dynamic type?
