rvalues -> ref (yup... again!)

[Timon Gehr]

On 01.04.2018 19:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/28/18 7:50 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> "The proposal could be amended to accept mutable ref's depending on 
>> the value-judgement balancing these 2 use cases. Sticking with const 
>> requires no such value judgement to be made at this time, and it's 
>> much easier to relax the spec in the future with emergence of evidence 
>> to do so."
>>
>> Just get it right the first time. "const" is a serious API 
>> restriction, and it shouldn't be forced on anyone, even intermittently 
>> until they figure out that it is too restrictive (as well as viral).
> 
> A great way to move things forward here, Timon, is to write a pull 
> request against the DIP with motivating text and examples.

I agree, but unfortunately I have many other things on my plate right 
now. Add to this that there are six or seven other DIPs that I really 
ought to finish/write/implement/rebase. I'll try to get back to this 
soon. Here, I was trying to make sure that popular misconceptions do not 
gain more traction.