My thoughts & tries with rvalue references

[Namespace]

On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 18:06:36 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 17:48:54 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> It would interest me which of the suggestions would be rather 
>> accepted.
>> - scope ref as Kenji suggested
>> - Or rather @ref because this is the way that D usually goes 
>> when it comes to subsequent expansions.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I am against introducing new one-symbol meanings, it always 
> looks like a hack. scope ref is much more elegant but I still 
> can't get straight in my mind what this combination does mean 
> from the abstract type system point of view.

So you were against the introduction of ravalue references or do 
you just have a problem with the syntax?