On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 20:42:58 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 05:25:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The idea is that fun(5) would be lowered to:
auto tmp = 5;
fun(tmp);
But when talking to Andrei I didn't realize that it would be
subtly different behavior than 'auto ref' for template
functions, which makes me concerned that this is not a good
idea.
Considering we already have working 'Sealed references', why
not simply allow rvalues for plain ref?
Bonus: No risk of mixup with template auto ref after
refactoring etc.
Save auto for other potential future use.
That would be horrible. How would you distinguish between lvalues
and rvalues? What if you want to store a pointer to an lvalue? If
ref accept both you cannot do that.
