My thoughts & tries with rvalue references

[Namespace]

> How so? It does not break anything, as all "const scope" cases 
> can be processed with "const scope ref", in fact, compiler 
> should be allowed to degrade first to latter. Regarding meaning 
> - if "scope ref" means permissive rvalues (mutable ones), then 
> "const scope ref" means closer match for C++ "const &" - 
> constant references that can't escape scope.
What I meant was simply, that users which are using already "in 
ref" would get then the error: "redundant storage class: ref" 
because 'in' would contains 'ref' already. That's the whole 
reason of my rejection. ;)

> I actually have an impression you do really want exactly "const 
> scope ref" considering frequent references to C++.
No, I like to get 'scope ref' just as much as 'in ref' / 'scope 
const ref'. Mutable rvalue references are absolutely useful.
How did you get the idea?