DIP 36: Rvalue References

[John Colvin]

On Saturday, 20 April 2013 at 16:11:49 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> Sadly, I have to agree on this. As nice as many new feature 
>> ideas are, they are far from priorities when there are 
>> multiple core mechanics that are broken.
>
> There is no reason to prioritize DIP 36. Kenji, Dicebot and I 
> did most of the work. The DIP is written and all necessary 
> information are described in detail there with examples. The 
> code also exists and there is even a pull request which has 
> passed all the tests. Thus, this proposal is linked with not 
> much work. Most of it was taken over by others.
> Due to this, it really is not asking too much to get a note if 
> this pull is accepted or rejected. Of course, with detailed 
> justification.

How about "on hold"? (Not that I have any say in it at all)

The fact is, there's much more to any change than simply 
implementing it. Changes break unexpected things. There are 
always extra corner cases not considered. There are always bugs 
and inconsistencies.

Although it's great that you and some others have done the 
legwork to implement this proposal, it may have to wait until 
other more urgent problems have been fixed.