rvalue references

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 3 June 2015 at 03:20:48 UTC, bitwise wrote:
> Anyways, moving forward with the assumption that the meaning of 
> 'in' will
> not change, I still don't understand. Why couldn't 'in ref' be 
> allowed to
> accept rvalues in addition to 'auto ref'?

For the same reasons that we can't have const ref accept rvalues, 
especially since in ref basically _is_ const ref in most cases 
right now.

- Jonathan M Davis