On Saturday, 20 April 2013 at 18:00:50 UTC, Namespace wrote:
The fact is, there's much more to any change than simply
implementing it. Changes break unexpected things. There are
always extra corner cases not considered. There are always
bugs and inconsistencies.
Could be, but I don't see what could be broken by this DIP. All
contingencies are listed also in the DIP (and that are not
many). And it passed all tests what is crucial.
The DIP for instance, consider that const scope ref is
semantically equivalent to pass by value, when it isn't (and not
only for performance reasons, but for aliasing reasons). Nothing
is considered about it.
