It's a minimal testcase; minimal. I thought the blog post was pretty clear that it had nothing to do with how the object was used after (e.g. if it was immediately destructed or not) and even linked to a real world example that would disprove that.

Hence why your holier than thou attitude about not writing smelly code is just asinine and not helpful. It plays into a mindset that people who write "good code" don't have to worry about 'esoteric' bug reports (e.g. like security advisories).

There's probably far more reasonable cases of temporaries being immediately destructed than you'd expect.

One that springs to mind is gtest. It defines a bunch of macros like ASSERT_TRUE that return a temporary object that has operator<< overloads to let you add additional information to the assertion failure. For example:

    ASSERT_NE(-1, open("/foo", O_RDONLY)) << "failed to open file: " << strerror(errno);

It's perfectly legitimate to just go ASSERT_TRUE(1 != 2), though.

Like I said:

> That's definitely not "immediately destroyed", there's operator<< being called between construction and destruction.

The point is that you have the option of using operator<<, but if you don't exercise that option, the temporary object is destroyed immediately.