rval->ref const(T), implicit conversions

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 01/19/2016 07:43 PM, bitwise wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 18:30:26 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 01/19/2016 06:43 AM, bitwise wrote:
>>>
>>> Finally, this situation simply should not be this complicated. A ref
>>> param should accept an rvalue. @safety is a specific concern, and unless
>>> I'm annotating my code with @safe, I should be able to write it however
>>> I want(within reason).
>>>
>>> To quote a famous author: "Sometimes, an entire community can miss a
>>> point".
>>>
>>> This is one of those points.
>>
>> It actually isn't.
>
> Clearly, it is =)
>
>     Bit
>

The point isn't particularly original. It's come up in most sufficiently 
long threads about the issue.

Also, you seem to think that you don't miss the point and you are part 
of the community. It isn't a useful quote.