I have a reference object without a copy factory. I get a compiler error when passing an instance of that object to a function that takes a const &in reference when the object is a global variable but not when it is a local variable. Is this a bug or a feature?

MyObject x;

void main()
{
    myFunc(x);  // Compile error: There is no copy operator for the type 'MyObject' available.  
}

void myFunc(const MyObject &in y)
{
    // Do something
}

void main()
{
    MyObject x;
    myFunc(x);  // Compiles successfully
}

void myFunc(const MyObject &in y)
{
    // Do something
}

I understand that, generally, &in references should be effectively the same as by-value. My main purpose for posting is to point out that the "const in&" behavior seems to works differently depending on scope, which seems like a bug.

My real issue is, in order to simulate variable arguments, I register about ten functions with the following prototypes:

Print(const ?&in);

Print(const ?&in, const ?&in);

...

I need this prototype work work for any type, whether a literal or a variable, and it needs to allow variable to pass by const reference so that it will work on objects that do not have copy constructors.

I would use "const ?&", but that doesn't work for literals (Error: Not a valid reference).

I welcome any alternatives. Thanks.

It is a bit contradictory. "const ?&in" was the lessor of two evils. What I really want is "const &" behavior like C++, which is pretty much what you describe with "?&in" for value types and "const ?&" for reference types.

Do you have any recommendations for a Print function that can take any type? If I use Print(const ?&) then I cannot pass value types. If I use Print(const ?&in) then I cannot pass reference types that do not copy. I don't think I can register both types, and I can't really expect my script writers to be able to distinguish value types from reference types.

I am using asEP_ALLOW_UNSAFE_REFERENCES, which does work for value types, but it does not work for literal values. Print(3.5), for example, fails with "Not a valid reference". Maybe I can investigate creating a copy for literal values being passed as "const &"

I looked into allowing literals to make a temporary copy when being passed as "const &inout". I think that will allow me to use "const &" until you make the change to not make "const ?&in" create a copy for reference types. I don't know if this is something you would want to incorporate officially or not. If not, I'll remove this patch and convert my "const ?&" to "const ?&in" as appropriate.