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

[aliak]

On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 21:55:00 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 13:55, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d 
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It's not a false equivalence fallacy: all the discussion is 
>> > about IMPLICIT conversion or rvalues to lvalues.
>> Yes it is, the issues regarding rvalue/lvalue conversion is 
>> not the same issues regarding the unsigned/signed conversion.
>
> I don't want to encourage this tangent, but I do want to say; 
> there's
> no proposal of rvalue -> lvalue *conversion*.
> The proposal is "ref accepts rvalues". There's no 'conversion'
> anywhere in sight. That's not on the menu.

Semantics? Call it a transformation. But it is an implicit 
changing of semantics.

Guess you encouraged it :p