Rvalue references - The resolution

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 09:43:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> ref int min(ref int a, ref int b) { return b < a ? b : a; }
> ...
> int x;
> fun(min(x, 100));
>
> Here the result of min may be bound to an lvalue or an rvalue depending  
> on a condition. In the latter case, combined with D's propensity to  
> destroy temporaries too early (immediately after function calls), the  
> behavior is silently undefined; the code may pass unittests.

Focusing back on this, I think any rvalues should be treated as though  
they survive through the end of the statement.  If the compiler can prove  
they are not in use after partially executing a statement, they can be  
destroyed early.

Is there any reason this shouldn't be the case?

-Steve