rvalue references

[Namespace via Digitalmars-d]

> No opinions on the semantics for `in` I proposed earlier? `in 
> T` would be something like a non-escapable `const auto ref T` 
> accepting rvalues without codebloat and avoiding the 
> indirection for small POD types T. Wouldn't that eliminate 99% 
> of the use cases for `auto ref`, improve readability 
> substantially and be the solution for all the C++ guys missing 
> the rvalue-bindability of `const T&`?

'in' means 'const scope' and 'scope ref' together with 'in ref' 
was proposed in DIP 36 which was rejected. Let's see if Andrei 
thinks that my current work is satisfying. I hope so. :)