rvalues -> ref (yup... again!)
turkeyman at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 16:15:53 UTC 2018
On 28 Mar. 2018 4:35 am, "Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
On 27.03.2018 20:14, Manu wrote:
> That's exactly what I've been saying. For like, 9 years..
> It looks like this:
> (contribution appreciated)
> As far as I can tell, it's completely benign, it just eliminates the
> annoying edge cases when interacting with functions that take
> arguments by ref. There's no spill-over affect anywhere that I'm aware
> of, and if you can find a single wart, I definitely want to know about
I've asked so many times for a technical destruction, nobody will
> present any opposition that is anything other than a rejection *in
> principle*. This is a holy war, not a technical one.
That's extremely unfair. It is just a bad idea to overload D const for this
purpose. Remove the "const" requirement and I'm on board.
I discussed that in that document. I'm happy to remove const, but it
requires a value judgement on the meaning of non-const in this case. It
becomes controversial without const, but I'm personally happy to remove it
if you can make The argument in favour. Can you give me some ideas where it
would be useful?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Digitalmars-d