My thoughts & tries with rvalue references

[Zach the Mystic]

On Saturday, 30 March 2013 at 13:07:44 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> Am 30.03.2013 12:04, schrieb Namespace:
>>> I have to agree on that. My first impression was that ref& is 
>>> equal to
>>> c++11 &&
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>> Benjamin Thaut
>>
>> Ok, it seems that I think differently.
>> And what is the general opinion of '&A' instead of 'ref &A'?
>> It has all the benefits that I described in my first post, but 
>> it may
>> not be so confusing.
>> If you like to ask "why not A&": That is more complex as it 
>> seems to be,
>> a opinion which is shared by Jonathan.
>> And I sincerely hope that no one is annoyed about my attempts 
>> to solve
>> this problem.
>
> No I highly appreciate it, that you are trying to solve the 
> problem. The current state of the language on this is annoying 
> and it needs to be fixed.
>
> I personally would like &A the question is if this is the 
> "D-Way". Maybe we should add a new keyword like "vref" for 
> "value reference".
>
> Kind Regards
> Benjamin Thaut

Although adding new keywords is not smiled upon at this point, it 
might actually be worth it in this case.