On Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 15:53:57 UTC, Namespace wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I also hope that this unfortunate and
lengthy discussion ends. And I also like the idea that const
ref works as in C++.
But I'm sure you can convince neither Walter nor Andrei still
the core developer team.
I tried my best a while back, but they sadly didn't take part in
the discussion. Just in case, it's summarized in
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected].
I could live with 'const auto ref' too, but I'd hate having to
type these 5 additional characters every time. ;)
And I don't quite understand what speaks against my suggestion.
If the compiler decides that by value is a better solution,
then structs are received by value, otherwise by ref. But the
user don't need to worry about it, because, whatever the
compiler may decide to do, he adapt calls to these functions
automatically.
Your proposal, if I understood correctly, restricts deadalnix'
approach to rvalues only and additionally requires changing the
param from 'A' to 'A&'. But iirc rvalues are already passed
directly (moved) in D, i.e., they are not copied - so your
approach is 1) simply not needed and 2) would require the A ->
'A&' transform (similar to A -> 'auto ref A').
It is in principle nothing more than what you want.
No, nothing more, but it's already covered by D, without special
syntax. I'd like to see
1) the move optimization applied to safe lvalue cases as well,
also without requiring syntactic changes;
2) Kenji's 'auto ref' proposal getting pulled in the near future
so that we can manually prevent argument copying for the
remaining unsafe lvalue cases.
