DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Community Review Round 1

[Jim Balter]

On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 08:34:30 UTC, Manu wrote:
[snip]

> It upsets me when people present strong opinions about this who 
> literally have no horse in the race. This is only really 
> meaningful, and only affects you if it actually affects you... 
> It's clearly not important to you, or you wouldn't be basing 
> your opinion on *I kinda feel...*
>
> Jonathan's argument is similar. He's worried about something 
> that this
> thread has tried and failed to determine exactly what is.

I don't think that's fair. He has been quite specific about his 
concern and the kind of situations where there would be degraded 
behavior, and it clearly *is* important to him, and he certainly 
has a horse in the race. But I believe you are correct that those 
are cases where there's some unrelated bug that the ref parameter 
restriction just happens to catch, and that's not a good enough 
argument for keeping the restriction.

> Meanwhile I think we have determined that the presumed 
> practical trouble
> cases are even less that I suspected up front.

That's surprising; I didn't realize that you suspected practical 
trouble cases.