On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 01:32:03 martin wrote: > So we do not really need 'auto ref' for non-templated functions > or a new, even more confusing keyword which you, Jonathan, seem > to insist on - 'const ref' (or, more elegantly 'in ref') is all > we need.
No, because that would be doing the same thing as C++, which Walter and Andrei have already rejected. They specifically do _not_ want there to be any ambiguity between whether a const ref variable is an lvalue or rvalue. If they were willing to make const ref work the same as C++'s const&, then we would never have had this problem in the first place. We specifically need something other than const ref. The const ref can continue to work as it does now, but we'll have a way to get semantics similar to C++'s const& when we want them. - Jonathan M Davis
