On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:33:49 -0400, kinke <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 18:11:21 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:09:45 -0400, Timon Gehr <[email protected]>
wrote:
There is no reason to prevent templates from using the mechanism that
generates only one copy. The two mechanisms shouldn't share the same
syntax, because then there is no way to tell them apart for template
functions.
You would be losing the optimization of passing primitive types by
value, wouldn't you?
Not if you keep the current `auto ref` template syntax AND introduce
another syntax `scope ref` for non-escapable references also accepting
rvalues.
I don't think 'scope ref' is on the table at this point(although I do
believe it should be).
And I still think Timon's statement is untrue. There is a reason, which is
that the new auto ref syntax forces reference parameters for all
types(even primitives), where the old template approach does not.
Bit
