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

[Manu]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 7:05 PM Nicholas Wilson via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> 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

I can't do that, it's been rejected, with mostly incorrect rejection
text affixed to the bottom.

> 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
> ))

I'm pretty sure that's not necessary. I haven't understood why this
noise about expressions. This DIP applies to statements.
I can't see how there's any problem with the lowering if the statement
is a control statement?

if (ref_fun(10)) { ... }
==>
{
  int __tmp = 10;
  if (ref_fun(__tmp)) { ... }
}

What's the trouble?