My thoughts & tries with rvalue references

[Namespace]

On Thursday, 4 April 2013 at 07:52:51 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> After some thinking on topic I come to conclusion that rvalue 
> refs _should_ be "scope ref" and stuff like "ref int f(@temp 
> ref int x) { return x; }" is invalid. I can see no valid use 
> case for such an error-prone case. Contrary, "scope ref" feels 
> just like it was designed for this task, also a good moment to 
> actually define what "scope" means.

I am beginning to like scope ref also. It just fits.
Nice that we agree on that now - but I still miss Kenji's, 
Walters and Andrei's blessing. Otherwise I think it would be ripe 
for a pull request. Or there is any difficulty?