DIP1000: Walter's proposal to resolve ambiguity of ref-return-scope parameters

[Imperatorn]

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 15:59:41 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 15:27:20 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 15:05:55 UTC, zjh wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 14:40:09 UTC, Dennis wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't consider that clean.
>>>
>>> I usually use `C++`,`C++` has no similar `scope`,`C++` has 
>>> `RAII`.
>>> It's like the `&` of `C++` versus the `ref` of `d`. `&` is 
>>> much simpler than `ref`.
>>> It would be nice if `d` had some `symbols/sugar syntax` to 
>>> simplify these attributes.
>>
>> I wonder what the reason was to choose ref instead of &. Maybe 
>> it's kinder to the parser.
>
> If you are new to D and don't already know C++, `int&` will 
> mean nothing to you, whereas you have at least a chance of 
> guessing what `ref int` means just from reading it.

So it was more of a readability thing then