auto ref is on the docket

[Namespace via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 01:01:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 6/22/15 4:09 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> There is no reason to prevent templates from using the 
>> mechanism that
>> generates only one copy. The two mechanisms shouldn't share 
>> the same
>> syntax, because then there is no way to tell them apart for 
>> template
>> functions.
>
> I understand. For my money I'd be okay with what's being 
> proposed instead of complicating the language yet again for the 
> perfect solution. -- Andrei

There is no perfect solution. :) Some are for in/scope ref, some 
are against it. Some are for auto ref, some are against it and 
even a few are for const ref but most are against it. So the 
perfect solution does not exist. And since scope/in ref was 
already rejected (DIP 36) I think auto ref is the only choice to 
introduce this feature without introducing a new attribute. And 
since you reverted the introducing of virtual because it has not 
enough value, I'm sure that introducing a new attribute just to 
accept both, lvalues and rvalues, wouldn't have enough value as 
well. I think the way it is implemented right now is good enough, 
but what matters is what you and Walter think.