Const ref and rvalues again...

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, November 05, 2012 06:05:07 Rob T wrote:
> On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 03:26:10 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> 
> wrote:
> > And when we argued for altering it so that it operated like
> > const ref in C++
> > (which allows const ref in D to continue to function like it
> > does now), some
> > folks complained, because they've found the current semantics
> > of auto ref to
> > be useful (something to do with propagating the exact, original
> > type, I
> > think).
> 
> I would expect that auto ref for a template and for a non
> template should work in exactly the same way, so why would there
> be a difference? If there must be a difference, there should be
> different semantics for specifying the difference, otherwise the
> inconsistent behaviours among identical semantics will only serve
> to confuse people.

auto ref's current semantics can't possibly work with non-templated functions, 
and it's clear that there are good reasons for keeping auto ref as it is now 
for templates. So, either we make it work with non-templated functions with 
different (albeit similar) semantics, or we need a new attribute for doing what 
we want to do with non-templated functions.

- Jonathan M Davis