I close BIP27. I won't be pursuing BIPs anymore

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 18.10.2016 20:15, ag0aep6g wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 07:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Andrei decided ages ago that he didn't think that having const ref take
>> rvalues was a good idea and that he doesn't think that it's a big deal. I
>> don't recall whether Walter has said much on the issue, but AFAIK, he
>> hasn't
>> said anything to contradict that, and Andrei has been very vocal about
>> how
>> rvalue references were a horrible mistake in C++ and that he doesn't
>> want to
>> see anything of the sort in D.
>
> It would be great if we had detailed rationale articles for these
> non-obvious decisions.
>
> First, so that people get a nice prepared answer for why D is different.

It wouldn't even be the same thing if it was allowed. D const is not C++ 
const. Enforcing transitive read-only on rvalue references does not make 
that much sense.

If rvalues shouldn't be allowed to bind to ref alone, there should just 
be some additional annotation that allows rvalues to bind to ref, but 
that additional annotation shouldn't do anything more.