Does D really need something like const&?

[Namespace]

> Nice try?  I don't get this.  It was supposed to be the 
> analogue to C++ rvalue references, Walter did not implement it 
> as Andrei expected (AIUI).  He made it a (admittedly useful) 
> template feature.

I got the answer that 'auto ref' is not the solution which will 
solve the const& issue and because of that that,  it will 
probably never be implemented for non-template functions. So 
first of all they must find a new suitable solution for that.

> scoped is implemented via a struct...
Whatever. The fact is that you can put a class instance on the 
stack and controll the instance lifetime also.

>> Interfaces, well, but I'm sure you can live without them 
>> sometimes.
>
> OK, so by eliminating my use cases that are problematic for 
> your theory, yes, I guess I can base all my decisions on size ;)
>
> -Steve
:D My statement was ironic. In this I am not so good, sorry.
It would be very cool to have interfaces (and maybe polymorphism) 
for structs also.

By the way: My intention was not to start a new flame war about 
the implementation of something like const&.
There are enough topics and discussions here about that, and I'm 
sure, that in the next few years a few more will be added.
My intention was to hear other opinions / answers to my 
questions. So I'm hoping that other express their opinion, too.

At least I have noticed so far, that you're in any case for 
something like const&. Accordingly, you answer my question with 
'yes, we need something like this.'.