On 3 June 2015 at 07:21, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 6/2/15 11:19 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 18:05:20 UTC, Namespace wrote: >>> >>> AFAIK Andrei wanted 'auto ref' as the syntax which accepts both, >>> lvalues and rvalues. That's why I'm asking if the current behaviour >>> for auto ref for templates should change, or not. If not, we have (as >>> you said) two meanings of auto ref, what is not optimal, but not so >>> bad either (IMO). >>> But if I had the choice, I would change it for both, so that both >>> create a temporary variable for rvalues. >> >> >> Andrei originally wanted auto ref to apply to non-templated functions, >> but Walter misunderstood what he meant and created what we have now - >> which is actually incredibly useful, because it allows you to forward >> the attributes of an argument - in particular, it's ref-ness. So, we >> definitely do _not_ want to lose that. > > > Yah, auto ref for templates is great. We only need to add auto ref for > non-templates with the semantics "like ref, except (a) accepts rvalues on > the caller side, (b) does not allow escaping the ref from the function". > > Note that __traits(isRef, param) doesn't work in an auto ref param in a > non-template function (attempt to use must be a compile-time error). > > That's about it.
You're killing me! I thought 'scope ref' was more-or-less agreed? auto ref makes no sense.
