Rvalue references - The resolution

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, May 04, 2013 20:37:36 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/4/13 7:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 5/4/2013 3:51 PM, w0rp wrote:
> >> Does all of this also mean that a
> >> function with a ref parameter will automagically work with r-values?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> This is new to me. My understanding is that the discussed design
> addresses safety, and leaves the rvalue discussion for a future iteration.

That is definitely where things were when we ended the discussion on Wednesday 
night. Walter favored making ref accept rvalues, but we never agreed on that. 
Manu was still in favor of scop ref (and David Nadlinger agreed with him 
IIRC), and you and I were arguing for auto ref to designate that a function 
accepts rvalues. We all agreed on the bounds check solution for @safety, but 
we explicitly tabled the discussion about accepting rvalues, because it was 
getting late, and we'd already been discussing it / arguing about it for quite 
some time. So, unless further discussion occurred after that which I missed, 
there is still no agreement on how to handle having a parameter accept both 
lvalues and rvalues by ref.

- Jonathan M Davis