DIP 36: Rvalue References

[Namespace]

> How about "on hold"? (Not that I have any say in it at all)
As long as it is implemented in the near future and we must not 
wait another year (not even a half) it is ok.
But the fact is, that we don't know what state it has, because we 
get no response.

> 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.
Could be, but I don't see what could be broken by this DIP. All 
contingencies are listed also in the DIP (and that are not many). 
And it passed all tests what is crucial.

> 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.
Could be, but I don't know why. Which other fix is necessary for 
this pull?
But also this would be ok, as long as we know, _which_ problems 
must be fixed.