DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

[12345swordy]

On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 16:47:48 UTC, Don wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 13:58:38 UTC, 12345swordy 
> wrote:
>> I do not accept gut feeling as a valid objection here. The 
>> current workarounds is shown to be painful as shown in the dip 
>> and in the discussions that it currently link. That *the* 
>> motivation here.
>
> Like I said previously I am on the reviews side and that's it.

In terms of what exactly?
Walter had stated they do not rejected the dip in principle.
You apparently *do* rejected it in principle, from judging your 
posts here.

> By the way I don't like your tone when you say: "I do not 
> accept gut feeling as a valid objection here".

If you stated that you think it a bad/good idea without 
explaining why you think it. That is what I call "gut feeling"

> Alright we're talking about a change that have been on hold for 
> almost 10 years, if it was simple it would already been done.

The current dip system didn't exist 10 years prior. I wouldn't 
say that things are already done due to them being simple, as 
there are quite number of "simple" features that wasn't 
implemented already (Looking at you tuples).

-Alex