Const ref and rvalues again...

[Manu]

On 7 November 2012 04:22, martin <kinke at libero.it> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 01:33:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> The most recent discussion where Walter and Andrei were part of the
>> discussion
>> was here:
>>
>> http://forum.dlang.org/post/**4F84D6DD.5090405@digitalmars.**com<http://forum.dlang.org/post/4F84D6DD.5090405@digitalmars.com>
>>
>
> That thread is quite misleading and, I'm sad to say, not very useful
> (rather damaging to this discussion) in my opinion - especially because the
> distinction between rvalue => 'const ref' and rvalue => ref is largely
> neglected, and that distinction is of extremely high importance, I can't
> stress that enough. Walter's 3 C++ examples (2 of them invalid anyway
> afaik) don't relate to _const_ references. The implicit type conversion
> problem in that thread isn't a problem for _const_ references, just to
> point out one tiny aspect.
> rvalue => ref/out propagation makes no sense imho, as does treating
> literals as lvalues (proposed by Walter iirc). The current 'auto ref'
> semantics also fail to cover the special role of _const_ references for
> rvalues (also illustrated by Scarecrow's post).
>
>
>  Certainly, it's not a simple matter of just making const
>> ref work with rvalues like most of the people coming from
>> C++ want and expect.
>>
>
> Well I absolutely do _not_ share this point of view. It just seems so
> logical to me. I'm still waiting for a plausible argument to prove me
> wrong. All the required info is in this thread, e.g., we covered the
> escaping issue you mentioned.
>

+1
I couldn't possibly agree more with your entire post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20121108/3d80461f/attachment.html>