DIP 36: Rvalue References

[Zach the Mystic]

On Wednesday, 17 April 2013 at 20:27:27 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> Oh, I thought you had anything against the DIP. ^^
> Yes that annoys me as well. That's why I really hope that we 
> can fix this vexing issue soon. :)

Yes, this temp ref issue is far more important than the ref 
safety issue I've been concerning myself with. I wouldn't mind if 
the objections I've brought up fall in favor of whatever it takes 
to get temp ref solved. ref safety is important, but it's nowhere 
near the shear *annoyingness* factor of rvalue temp refs. But 
someone besides me would need to evaluate both DIP 35 & 36 to see 
if there were any real conflicts there.