opAssign and const?

[Era Scarecrow]

On Friday, 4 May 2012 at 06:15:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I believe that the issue is that x2 isn't const, so when the 
> compiler decides which of the two overloads to use, it picks 
> the one which doesn't use const. If the const ref version were 
> the only one, then it would work with x2, but since it isn't, 
> the other one gets picked because it's deemed a better match.

  I figured that was the case too. But I get the feeling that's 
wrong in this case. I was hoping to have only two declared 
opAssing's, one for temporaries (without ref) and one for 
copying. Kinda like the difference between saying a=b and a[]=b[] 
for an array. Be annoying if I had to force the cast to be const 
to do what I wanted; Right?