My thoughts & tries with rvalue references

[Namespace]

On Friday, 5 April 2013 at 07:48:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 April 2013 at 16:25:52 UTC, kenji hara wrote:
>> I also think writing DIP would be better.
>> ...
>
> Btw, Kenji, what do you think about redefining "in" to "const 
> scope ref" and allowing compiler to chose how variable exactly 
> is passed ("auto ref" with no template bloat)? Within those 
> restrictions plain values should be indistinguishable from 
> const rvalue refs.
>
> Will make "in" also much more meaningful as a separate entity.

To change "in" from "const scope" to "const scope ref" is IMO a 
bad idea. It will break code and it's not intuitive.
In my opinion we should use "ref" in combination with something 
else (in this case "scope").
But that is my personal opinion.