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

[Nicholas Wilson]

On Thursday, 31 January 2019 at 02:10:05 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:05 PM Andrei Alexandrescu via
>> fun(my_short); // implicit type conversions (ie, short->int 
>> promotion)
>> ========
>
> Oh I see.
>
>> fun(short(10)); // implicit type conversions (ie, short->int 
>> promotion)
>
> I did not intend for this DIP to apply to anything other than 
> rvalues.
> I can totally see how that's not clear. `my_short` should be an 
> rvalue
> of some form, like the rest.
> Is that the only such line?

I think so.

>> Presumably my_short is a variable of type short. Is that 
>> correct?
>
> It is not. It should be an rvalue like everything else. Perhaps 
> it's an enum... but I should write `short(10)`, that would be 
> clear.

It would.

>> * DIP 1016 proposes a hole in the language one could drive a 
>> truck through.
>
> I still can't see a truck-sized hole.
>
>> * The problem goes undetected in community review.
>
> I don't know how I could have influenced this outcome.
>
>> * Its own author seems to not have an understanding of what 
>> the DIP proposes.
>
> More classy comments. I can't get enough of the way you 
> belittle people.
>
> I made a 1-word error, where I should have written `short(10)` 
> to be clear.
> 1-word error feels amendment-worthy, and not a call for "let's 
> start
> over from scratch".

You should just PR it back to review with that fix and a note 
about how it lowers to statements (incl. an example of 
lambdification for if/while/for/switch statements (see 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/qysmnatmjquuhylaqumm@forum.dlang.org 
))