DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

[Manu]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:35 PM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/24/2019 4:31 PM, 12345swordy wrote:
> > And wait for another 180+ days for a fix? Come on dude, can you understand the
> > frustration being display here?
>
> Of course it's frustrating. On the other hand, we've had a lot of problems
> stemming from implementing features without thoroughly understanding them.
>
> Rvalue references have a lot of subtleties to them, and we should not rush into
> it, especially since these issues only turned up at the last minute.

Which issues? The initialization order issue? That's relatively
trivial, isolated, and doesn't change the substance of the proposal in
any way (unless a working rewrite is impossible, which I'm confident
is not the case).
The rest of your criticisms certainly did not 'turn up at last
minute', they were extensively discussed, and discussion material is
available, and present in the community review summary.

And then there's the weird expression vs statement comments, which are
bizarre, because you literally had to modify my code snippets
(removing the semicolons) to read it that way... I can't accept that
feedback, that just demonstrates a mis-reading of the DIP. If the DIP
could be misunderstood that way, then that's surely revision-worthy,
not throw-it-out-and-start-over worthy, and it has nothing to say
about the substance of the design.