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

[Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)]

On 03/24/2018 12:03 AM, Manu wrote:
>> Why aim for "it often works", when we want "it always works"? Forcing const
>> upon people who want to pass rvalues by reference is just not good enough.
>> It is bad language design.
> 
> I think you need to re-read the whole thread, and understand what
> we're even talking about.
> Nobody wants to pass rvalues by mutable-ref... 

I do. The ban serves no useful purpose (at least not any purpose that D 
doesn't *already* fail at - like knowing at the callsite whether a param 
is intended to be mutated). And it would permit the "avoid a copy" 
benefits in a completely orthogonal way - *without* relying on the param 
fitting D's transitive const requirements.