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

[Atila Neves]

On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 02:41:12 UTC, Manu wrote:

> He's trying to say that C++ introduced rvalue references 
> because normal references weren't able to allow for move 
> semantics to exist. It's a red-herring. D already has move 
> semantics, they work well, and they're not on trial here.
>
> In C++'s case, it's not that references were deficient at being
> references that C++ needed rval-references, it's that 
> references were
> deficient at being move-able.

There were deficient at being moveable because temporaries can 
bind to const T&.

> That is not a problem that exists in D.

Because temporaries can't bind to ref const(T).

> It's fine for references to
> just be references in D. We're not struggling to make references
> move-able in D, that's not a thing, we already have move 
> semantics.
> Any extension of this conversation about references into C++
> rvalue-references (T&&) and or move-semantics are red-herrings.
> There's no such problem in D that needs to be resolved, and the
> existing solution is excellent.

If I'm reading you correctly (which I might not), you seem to be 
saying that there's a way forward in which:

1) D's move semantics aren't affected
2) No rvalue references are introduced
3) Temporaries can bind to ref const(T)

I'd love to know what that would look like.

Atila