The liabilities of binding rvalues to ref

[Peter Alexander]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 at 17:27:41 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> Short answer: no matter what, we have to find a way to be able 
> to write one function that takes by ref, and accepts both 
> rvalues and lvalues.  If ref const is that way, so be it.  If 
> auto ref is that way, so be it.  If it's plain-old ref, I'm 
> fine with that too.

Allowing plain-old ref to bind to rvalues would be a massive 
mistake in my opinion. See case (2) in the original post.

It seems that 'auto ref' would be suitable, provided we can find 
a way for it to work with normal functions (in a sensible way, 
not like templates).