On Thursday, 14 May 2015 at 20:02:29 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 13:15:34 -0400, Namespace
<rswhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 14 May 2015 at 16:53:04 UTC, bitwise wrote:
If it were up to me, I would say:
'scope' should be removed as a storage class,
'ref' should be left as is, and
'in' should adopt the behavior of 'ref' post DIP25
Bit
As Andrei said several times (recently here:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/scaufixfdyyrbmijg...@forum.dlang.org?page=3#post-mit5lp:241kpt:241:40digitalmars.com)
auto ref will take care about rvalue references. I've only
hoped that I could get a schedule for that or at least a
confirmation. :)
If I understand Andrei's response correctly though, you will
still have to
use 'auto ref' to get ref to bind to rvalues.. no?
Yes, that's what I said. :)
Besides, it would be horrible if rvalues could be bound to normal
ref.
So if I'm right about the above, and scope is out, why not just
use 'in' instead of 'auto ref'?
Bit
Don't ask me, I'm just a little light here.
