DIP35: supplement to DIP25: Sealed References

[Diggory]

>
> 'scope ref' would allow, that both, lvalues AND rvalues can be 
> bound to. DIP 35 don't say anything about that.
> Just to be clear:
> The primary reason at all DIP 36 was created, was in general to 
> find a possibility that accept rvalues ​​AND lvalues. That was 
> the initial reason.

I understand that, and you said that the idea of rvalues being 
passed as "ref" had been rejected. What I want to know is why 
rvalues as "ref" are unacceptable while rvalues as "scope ref" 
are acceptable when both "ref" and "scope ref" would be exactly 
equivalent in every other way.